JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The State has filed this first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5. 1. 2001 passed by learned District Judge, Solan (for short ''trial Court'') in Civil Suit No. 8/1 of 1997 whereby it awarded an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as damages to the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 on account of death of Sandhya and on the principle of vicarious liability this amount was directed to be paid by the appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint are that Sandhya (deceased) was working as Instructor at Angan Bari Teachers Training Centre, Theog and her marriage was solemnized on 11. 5. 1995. Immediately after her marriage, she conceived pregnancy and since November, 1995 she was on medical leave. On 25. 4. 1996 she was admitted in District Hospital, Solan as an emergency case. Defendant No. 6 Dr. R. P. Sahani was in the OPD and got her admitted as she was bleeding and labour pain had started. Dr. Sahani handed over the case to Dr. Kamlesh Sharma, defendant No. 5, as it related to the department of Gynaecology. At about 6. 30 it was realized that Gynaecologist i. e. Dr. Maya Ahuja, defendant No. 4 being specialist should be called. As a result, she was sent for and came at 9. 00 p. m. After examining the deceased, defendant No. 4 allegedly left the hospital. According to the plaintiff, the condition of Smt. Sandhya deteriorated as the bleeding went on unabated. This caused anxious moments for PW-2 being her father.

He went to defendant No. 4 at her residence and asked her to further examine the patient, but the defendant No. 4 did not come to the hospital. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 4 only came at 9. 00 a. m. on the following day i. e. 26. 4. 1996 and got ultrasound test of Smt. Sandhya conducted and in the said test it was found that fetus was dead and dead child was delivered. It was because of the profuse and continuous bleeding that the deceased ultimately had to refer to IGMC, Shimla, but even then the defendant No. 4 commanded to retain the patient. The said defendant No. 4 is alleged to have not attended upon the patient properly and neglected to look after her according to the professional ethics.

3. It was further averred that from 9. 00 p. m. on 25. 4. 1996 to 3. 30 a. m. on 26. 4. 1996, the defendant No. 4 left the patient to her own fate despite knowing her serious and deteriorating condition and it was on account of non-serious attitude of defendant No. 4 towards the patient that she ultimately died. The plaintiff maintained that had the defendant No. 4 being a Gynaecologist attended to the patient promptly and properly she would not have died. It was on these allegations that the plaintiff, who is the husband of the deceased, filed the suit for damages wherein the defendants No. 1 to 3 i. e. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Secretary (Health), Director Health and Chief Medical Officer, Solan, were impleaded as parties with the allegation that the said defendants were vicariously liable for the death of Sandhya.

4. The defendants No. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement wherein it was averred that defendant No. 4 was very much alive to the medical treatment of the deceased Sandhya and therefore, there was no lapse, laxity or misconduct on her part in rendering treatment to the deceased. It was further averred that despite giving best medical treatment, the deceased died due to post partum hemorrhage

5. The defendant No. 4 Dr. Maya Ahuja filed a separate written statement wherein she averred that she never came to the hospital at 9. 00 p. m. on 25. 4. 1996 as alleged and further denied having been given any treatment to the patient at that time. She further averred that first call given to her to attend upon the patient was at 2. 45 a. m. on 26. 4. 1996 and she immediately came to the hospital at 3. 30 a. m. on the same date i. e. 26. 4. 1996 and examined, treated and ensured all possible medication to the patient. Defendant No. 4 further maintained that sh