ORDER

1.       This Revision Petition has been filed by the Legal Heirs of the Petitioner – Kuldeep Chand Dutta (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Complainant’) against the impugned Order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Remand Appeal No. 646/2013 First Appeal No. 701/2011, whereby the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 3 was allowed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”), allowing the Complaint against the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 3, was set aside.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 03.11.2007, the wife of the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘patient’) approached the Opposite Party No. 1 for treatment of abdominal pain after disclosing the medical history of her irregular blood pressure and diabetes, where she was alleged to have been advised to undergo minor surgery for Cholecystitites and hernia without exploring other medical treatment options, to which the patient agreed and underwent certain clinical tests at Dhawan Hospital Lab, which is associated with Opposite Party No.1. On 5.11.2007, the patient underwent surgery performed by the Opposite Party No.1. Later, the Complainant was informed that the patient was in coma but would recover soon. However, it was alleged that the Opposite Party No.1 never updated the Complainant on the patient's condition and kept her in the ICU without disclosure of her deteriorating health condition. Suddenly, on 06.11.2007, at around 11:30, the Opposite Party No.1 instructed the Complainant and other relatives to transfer the patient to Opposite Party No. 2 for further treatment, citing inadequate medical facilities. It was alleged that the patient was transferred to the Opposite Party No. 2 without a specialist doctor in the ambulance, despite being in a critical condition, where she was declared brought dead. Being aggrieved with the alleged deficiency in service causing untimely death of his wife due to gross negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 and lack of necessary facilities and having suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 10 lakh and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost.

3.       The Opposite Parties, in their reply, denied negligence during the treatment given by them.

4.       The District Forum, vide its Order dated 31.03.2011, allowed the Complaint, holding the Opposite Party No. 1 grossly deficient in service. No liability was fastened on the Opposite Party No. 2 being a hospital, but since the Opposite Party No. 3 – Insurance Company was indemnifying the Opposite Party No. 1, therefore, both were held liable jointly and severally.

5.       Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 3 filed Appeal before the State Commission.

6.       The State Commission, vide its Order dated 16.02.2015, allowed the Appeal and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint.

7.       Being aggrieved, the legal heirs of the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

8.       Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. 

9.       After going through the record and having considered that two expert opinions had been filed in the matter, one by the Petitioner / Complainant and the other by the Respondent No. 2 / Hospital / Doctor, I sent the matter to the concerned specialist Doctors of AIIMS, New Delhi to seek their expert opinion on the issue, with the note reproduced as under:

The expert opinion of concerned Doctors of AIIMS, New Delhi is sought in this matter in view of two different expert opinions filed by the Petitioner / Complainant on the one hand and the Respondent No. 2 / Hospital / Doctor on the other. In this case, the patient, on account of abdominal pain, came to Dr