AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE two appeals arise out of a single order passed by the D.F., Belgaum in C. No. 25/1998 dated 7.7.2000 by both the parties. By the said order the D.F. has allowed the complaint in part and directed O.P. 1 to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of the order.
APPEAL No. 695/2000 has been preferred by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation not being satisfied with the compensation amount of Rs. 75,000/-, whereas A. No. 701/2000 has been preferred by O.Ps. challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the D.F. By consent of both the sides these two appeals have been disposed of by this single order. We do not deem it necessary to narrate the facts in detail since the order of the D.F. has to be set aside on the ground of procedural illegality overlooking the provisions of Section 14(2-A) of the C.P. Act, 1986. However in a nutshell we narrate the facts in detail which led the parties to approach this Commission by filing these two appeals.
The complainant had admitted his wife Pramila in the hospital of O.P. 1 on 19.7.1997 for treatment of gastric obstruction. O.P. 2 who is a doctor after examining her advised her to undergo operation for gastric outlet obstruction and accordingly operated her on 8.8.1997. But however she died on 9.8.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. According to the complainant the death occurred on account of negligence on the part of the opponents and hence claimed compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs and also medical expenses of Rs. 41,361/-.
O.Ps. filed their detailed written version denying all the allegations. According to the doctor-O.P. 2 there was no negligence on his part and all the necessary precautions were taken by the hospital as well as the doctor in performing the operation and also treating her. Hence requested the D.F. to dismiss the complaint. Before the D.F. the opponents also filed the affidavits of Dr. P.J. Prabhakar, Prof. of Surgery of J.J.M. Medical College, Davangere, and another expert Dr. P.N. Vishwanathan, Asst. Prof. Anaesthesiology, Government Medical College, Mysore and another expert Dr. Sukeshrao, Medical Practitioner, Mangalore. All these experts have given their opinion after going through the records stating that the treatment given to the patient was quite adequate and there was no negligence on the part of the attending doctors. These doctors have not been cross-examined by the complainant.
FROM the judgment produced before this Commission it is seen that though the proceeding was conducted by the President and 2 Members, the judgment was signed only by the President and one Member. According to Section 14(2-A) of the C.P. Act every order made by the D.F. under Sub-section (1) should be signed by its President and the Member or Members who conducted the proceeding. In the present case the proceeding was conducted by the President and 2 Members. However, only the President and a Member have signed the said judgment which is against the provisions. In addition to this in the case where the medical negligence is attributed the evidence of the parties should be subjected to cross-examination. In the present case as mentioned above though 3 experts have filed their affidavits the complainant did not opt for cross-examination. In fact it is brought to our notice that on behalf of the complainant an application was filed to cross-examine the said doctors. But subsequently the said request was withdrawn for the reasons best known to the complainant. We have heard learned Advocates Mr. P.N. Rajeswara on behalf of O.Ps. and Mr. R.D. Gokakakar on behalf of the complainant. We are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the order of the DF has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted for fresh disposal. However, it is open to the complainant to cross-examine the 3 doctors who have filed their affidavits. Since the complainant is an old man and the matter is pending since long we direct the DF to dispose of the complaint within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. We direct the parties to bear their own costs in these appeals. Appeals disposed of.