ORDER

D.K. Jain, President. - Challenge in these two cross Revision Petitions, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'), is to the order.* dated 13.11.2009 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal Nos. 1143 and 1347 of 2009, Revision Petition No. 692 of 2010 is by the Opposite Party in the complaint, whereas, Revision Petition No. 3013 of 2011 is by the Complainants. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 25.3.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad in Complaint No. 180 of 2008 (for short the District Forum"). The District Forum, while holding that the Opposite Party i.e. the treating doctor, was deficient in rendering service in treating late Smt. Srilaxmi, had directed her to pay to the Complainants a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

2. Late Smt. Sri laxmi was the wife of Complainant No. 1 and mother of Complainants Nos. 2 and 3. The Opposite Party in the Complaint, an Obstetrician and Gynaecologist by profession, is running a Nursing Home under the name and sty