JUDGMENT - W.M. SAMBRE, PRESIDENT :---Parties by their Counsels. The grievance of the complainant is that his wife Kalpana was admitted to the Hospital of Dr. Chiniwala, when she was having some gynaec trouble, as bleeding was going on. Therefore, Dr. Chiniwala, the O.P. No. 2 referred this patient to the O.P. No. 1. It is stated by the complainant that this patient was treated by Mrs. Chiniwala, who was a Homeopathic practitioner. It is the case of the complainant that even though, this O.P. No. 1 was not qualified to treat the gynaec patient, still she has aborted the complainant's wife. Her action in treating the patient has damaged the Uterus, which was required to be stitched. According to the complainant, after two days, the O.P. referred (sic) to available in the hospital where these opposite party were practicing. The complainant stated that without this the treatment was not possible as the facility was not available in the hospital of opposite parties in fact. It was obligatory on the part of the O.P. to refer this case immediately, to a Doctor, who was available at a distance of 14 K.mt. away, where the facilities to some extent was available, which has not been done by this respondent. On the other hand, the O.P. has taken the responsibility of treating the patient damaging the intestine and uterus causing her death. It is contended that the facilities were available at the hospital of O.P. No. 1 2 and that the labour room of this hospital was described by the Police authorities in the Panchanama. It has not reflected that there were any facility available in the labour room, or any nurse was available. Under these circumstances, the complainant contended that it was not proper on the part of this O.P. No. 1 and 2 to take risk to treat the patient. 2.It is further contended that when this patient was referred to 3rd Doctor, Dr. Hemant Bansali, who immediately stated that this was a case of laprotomy and therefore, it is required to be immediately taken cognizance as it was not proper on the part of the concerned Doctor to treat this patient. Again another Doctor, Dr. Karuwala, who has stated that after examination, he is reporting the matter to police as it was a criminal abortion and therefore, matter may be referred to the Police. Again another Doctor, Dr. Karuwala, who has stated that after examination, he is reporting the matter to police as it was a criminal abortion and therefore, matter may be referred to the Police. The patient was thereafter, taken to Hinduja Hospital, as the respiratory system was not available with Dr. Karuwala, where she breathed her last on 10-7-91. Thus, this process started from 5th to 10th. The major period, according to the complainant was with the O.P. No. 1 2, who have taken 2 days and have damaged the uterus of the complainant's wife which has resulted in her death. Therefore, he has contended that they are entitled for the compensation from O.P. No. 1 2 to the tune of Rs. 9 lakhs. 3.It is also contended that the O.P. No. 1 was not qualified to do the surgical job, especially in respect of the abortion etc. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court, wherein it has been observed that the Doctors who are registered as Homeopath shall not practise in other faculty and therefore, they claim, an action on the part of the O.P. No. 1, in treating the patient and operating her was beyond her jurisdiction and she has exceeded her limit. 4.In reply to the contention of the complainant's Counsel, the learned Counsel for the O.P. has contended that this O.P. No. 1 was qualified eventhough she is a homeopath, and even in homeopathy, about the treatment of gyneocology is given. Moreover, this O.P. No. 1 has already undergone a training in Masina Hospital and Cooper hospital. Therefore, she has an experience about the treatment of gyneocology also, and therefore, this was an emergency case, as the placental tissues were hanging and she was required to deal with the case urgently. She might have been (sic) contention of the complainant is that she was not qualified to do so and she was under obligation to ask a 3rd Doctor to treat the patient in the case of emergency, as there was no facility. This point has not been discussed by the learned Counsel for the O.P. as regards the availability of facility in the hospital. This point has not been discussed by the learned Counsel for the O.P. as regards the availability of facility in the hospital. But considering the fact about her liability to treat the complainant's wife eventhough she is an Homeopathic Doctor, we are not inclined to accept her contention as the Supreme Court has completely excluded the practice of allopathy by the Homeopath to this extent, and therefore, the liability is that of the O.P. No. 1. Now the question i.e. of quantum to what extent the O.P. No. 1 is liable. 5.It is pertinent to note that O.P. No. 1 2 are practicing in Chinchani Village in the tribal area. In some villages, no Doctor's facility is available but considering the attitude on the part of these Doctors, that they are rendering service in such rural area, we are of the view that some lapses must have taken place on their part, especially on the part of O.P. No. 1. To what extent, this liability can be fassened against them is the question. It is pertinent to note that this lady along with her husband living in a village, and renders service to villagers eventhough her husband is a qualified Doctor, what amount, they might be earning is a matter for consideration. Therefore, the amount to be quantified to be granted in favour of the complainant is to be considered from that angle. Therefore, we grant compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of this order. With this direction, this complaint stands disposed off. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to cost. Application allowed.