JUDGMENT

DR.SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J

1. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the com plainants no.l to 6 in the com plaint are legal heirs of Satwant Kaur (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) being her husband and children. The deceased due to abdom inal pain was taken to Dr. Vivek K. Jain (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no.l”) by her husband i.e. the com plainant no 1 and Jagw inder Singh for consultation and treatm ent. The deceased was diagnosed w ith stones in gall bladder and the opposite party no.l prescribed surgical operation for rem oval of gall bladder i.e. cholecystectom y. The deceased was operated on 31.05.2012 in the hospital of the opposite party no 1 and gall bladder was Al rem oved but the deceased even after operation continued to vom it. The deceased rem ained adm it in the hospital from 31.05.2012 to 03.06.2012 but the abdom inal pain did not subside. The deceased was discharged from hospital on 03.06.2012 despite having vom iting sensation. The m edical file and surgical notes pertaining to the deceased were not handed over to the com plainant no. 1. The deceased due to deteriorating condition was rem oved to A stha Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no 3”) for treatm ent where the deceased was subjected to various tests and rem ained adm it till 10.06.2012 but without any relief in the pain. The opposite party no. 3 referred the deceased to Christian M edical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no. 4”) for further treatm ent and m anagem ent where the deceased was adm itted on 11.06.2012. The com plainants were intim ated by the doctors that the com m on bile duct (hereinafter referred to as “CBD”) of the deceased was cut/injured during the operation of rem oval of gall bladder and drain was also leaked due to which bile fluid and waste fluid collected/entered in the abdom inal parts of the body resulting into infection and poisonous substance in the body. The deceased rem ained adm it in the opposite party no. 4 from 11.06.2012 to 03.07.2012 and got discharged on 03.07.2012. The com plainants spent about Rs. 5,00,000/- on m edical treatm ent of the deceased but condition of the deceased did not im prove. The deceased also rem ained adm it in PGI, Chandigarh from 03.07.2012 to 05.07.2012 and died on 05.07.2012. The opposite parties no. 3 and 4 after going through the discharge sum m ary of the deceased supplied by the opposite party no.l intim ated the com plainants that the operation of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Hukam Chand Garg (hereinafter referred to as “the opposite party no. 2”) although the opposite party no. 1 assured the com plainants that he him self would conduct the operation. The com plainants cam e to know that the opposite party no.l was not having necessary qualification to conduct the surgery being an anesthetist and the operation was conducted by the opposite party no.2 in the hospital of the opposite party no.l as evident from the discharge sum m ary of the deceased. The com plainants alleged m edical negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.l and no. 2 as they operated the deceased in a negligent m anner due to which the CBD was got injured/cut. The opposite parties no 1 & 2 did not arrange/put proper drainage after the operation of gall bladder which caused leakage of the waste fluid which was collected in the body due to which condition of the deceased becam e deteriorated and resulting her death on 05.07.212. The opposite parties no. 1 and no.2 are jointly and severely liable for m edical negligence in perform ing surgery of rem oval of the gall bladder of the deceased and as such were responsible for her death. The com plainants being aggrieved filed present consum er com plaint bearing C. C. no. 473 of 2012 tiled as Lakhwinder Singh and others V Dr. Vivek K. Jain and others under section 12 of the Consum er Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the A ct”) before the D ist