JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, PRESIDENT.:---The main question in controversy is whether the deceased Kamlesh Krishnabehari Agrawal, aged about 45 years died in the earlier part of the day of 9th November, 1993 at Bombay Hospital, on account of grossly deficient services administered by the said Hospital. The main allegation is that although Kamlesh was suffering from acute Diabetese and suffered Heart Blockade was not administered insulin for about 10 to 12 hours between 8-11-1993 to 9-11-1993 and further that there was also deficiency in service in the treatment of Right Ventricular Infarction and for this deficiency in service, the husband has claimed compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The family has three children and in the absence of wife, the husband has claimed that the above compensation is most reasonable and deserves to be given to him from the opposite party namely Bombay Hospital Medicial Research Centre. 2.The facts are that the wife of the complainant developed chest pain on 5th November, 1993 in the evening hours and she was, therefore, admitted to Dr. Rane's Hospital at Chembur for treatment as per the advice of family Doctor Upadhyay. The said patient was in the hospital of Dr. Rane upto 8th of November, 1993. It is stated that the E.C.G. on admission to Dr. Rane's Hospital, indicated initially Acute Inferior wall Myocardial Infarction with reciprocal changes in anterolateral leads. On the subsequent E.C.G., it was indicated that there was Acute Inferolateral wall Myocardial Infarction with ST. elevation in (rt) sided chest leads. On 8th November, 1993 at about 11.30 a.m., the blood pressure and the pulse rate came down and indicated emergency. In order to ensure best possible treatment, patient Mrs. Kamlesh was shifted to Bombay Hospital, where she was admitted at about 7.00 p.m. under the care of Dr. P.L. Tiwari-Cardiologist attached to the Hospital. Here it may be stated that according to Hospital Authorities, Dr. Tiwari is not in the employment of the Hospital. The patient was shifted from Dr. Rane's Hospital to Bombay Hospital in the Hospital's own cardiac van under the supervision of Dr. Vaswani. Dr. Rane issued the Discharge card showing the mode of treatment he adopted in the treatment of the patient between 5-11-93 to 8-11-1993 and it has been emphasized that all along the patient was treated for cardiac ailment and was given insulin throughout because of the Diabetes Mellitus. Vaswani. Dr. Rane issued the Discharge card showing the mode of treatment he adopted in the treatment of the patient between 5-11-93 to 8-11-1993 and it has been emphasized that all along the patient was treated for cardiac ailment and was given insulin throughout because of the Diabetes Mellitus. The complainant has contended that Dr. Tiwari attended on the patient for a minute or two at about 10.30 p.m., on the same day, but did not try to verify the treatment that was being given to her. After Dr. Vaswani left at about 11.00 p.m., there was no senior doctor to attend on his wife, who was admitted to I.C.U. in the said hospital. The patient was put on pace maker by Dr. Rane before the discharge, possibly because of the cardiac complication. It is alleged by the complainant that his wife remained restless throughout the night and all the entrities on the part of the complaintant to summon the Doctor did not carry any response and the patient remained unattended throughout the night of 8-11-1993 and 9-11-1993. On 9-11-1993 in the morning, the Doctor belonging to the hospital told to the complainant that the condition of the patient was critical and that the blood sugar level had gone abnormally high at about 600 mgms%. Thereafter, Doctors started hurriedly to attend upon the patient, but Dr. Tiwari never turned up. 3.The patient died on 9-11-1993 at about 10.00 a.m. and the Death Certificate showed the cause "Cardiorespiratory Failure due to Acute Myocardial Infarction and Cardiogenic shock with Diabetic Mellitus". The patient was not treated with insulin right upto early morning of 9-11-1993 and as a result of this, the blood sugar level shot up to a dangerous level. The Hospital was fully aware that the patient was having the history of Diabetes and that in the discharge notes issued by Dr. Rane, this position was made very clear, but the hospital gave only routine treatment which was rather perfunctory. The seriousness of the condition of the patient was not at all recognised by the doctors at the hospital. The medicines which were called from the complainant by the hospital, refer to Dextrose, whereas the insulin (Actrapid) was called for only on 9-11-1993 in the morning, due to which the sugar level was raised and that should have been countered by the repeated doses of insulin. The medicines which were called from the complainant by the hospital, refer to Dextrose, whereas the insulin (Actrapid) was called for only on 9-11-1993 in the morning, due to which the sugar level was raised and that should have been countered by the repeated doses of insulin. The same was not done and when the things went out of the hand, an attempt was made to give insulin but that did not save the patient and ultimately the patient died on 9-11-1993 at about 10.00 a.m. There was, therefore, gross dereliction of duty by the hospital staff and the avoidable loss of life could have been averted by the timely treatment. The complainant has therefore asked for compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. 4.This has been stoutly opposed by the Hospital authorities. In the Written Statement dated 4th January 1996, the Hospital has denied all the allegations. It is contended that the complainant is not the consumer and that the hospital is managed by the Trustees and further, that there is no proper description of the hospital in the complaint, which should pursuade the Commission to dismiss the complaint. The complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law and on that count also, the complaint should be dismissed. The opposite party does not know as to what was the status of the patient while she was in Dr. Rana's Hospital, but it is admitted by the hospital that the patient was admitted in a very critical condition with a heart blockade and severe Diabetes Mellitus on 8-11-1993 about 7.00 p.m. The admission was given on the instruction of Dr. P.L. Tiwari and that the treatment was carried out under the supervision of highly qualified and competent doctors. Dr. Tiwari examined the patient at about 10.30 p.m. on 8-11-1993 and recommended the continuance of the treatment commenced by the Registrar of the I.C.U. unit. He, however, advised the Registrar to control the blood pressure. The patient was taking tablet Dibenes, but the same was not administered to the patient, due to medicial reasons. It was advisable to control the blood pressure by giving Dopamine with Dextrose and the blood sugar with insulin. There was, thus, no negligence on the part of the hospital in giving the treatment. The blood sugar was found at 300 mg%. Any patient, who is in cardio-genic shock shows signs of fluctuating blood sugar and marked hypertension. It was advisable to control the blood pressure by giving Dopamine with Dextrose and the blood sugar with insulin. There was, thus, no negligence on the part of the hospital in giving the treatment. The blood sugar was found at 300 mg%. Any patient, who is in cardio-genic shock shows signs of fluctuating blood sugar and marked hypertension. Since the patient had high blood pressure, the same was required to be controller by giving Dopamine with Dextrose solution. Dopamine could not be given in saline as the saline is not administered to the patients suffering from heart problems. It is denied that the hospital staff allowed the blood sugar level to shoot up to a dangerous level when the patient was known to have a diabetic history and was admitted in the I.C.U. for intensive monitoring and care. It is denied that the patient though suffering from heart problem, really died on account of uncontrolled rise in blood sugar. It is admitted that on 9-11-1993, the patient died on account of reasons stated above, but it is vehemently denied that there was negligence on the part of the hospital in treating Kamlesh, wife of the complainant and it is, therefore, prayed that the claim for compensation should be dismissed. 5.We find that one Sidheshwar De-Manager (Legal) of the opposite party, has filed an affidavit on 5th March, 1997 and we find that the same contentions are raised and it is suggested that the blood sugar was tested four times during the fourteen hours hospitalisation of the patient in the hospital. Rest of the contents of the affidavit appears to be the same as in the Written Statement. According to Dr. De, Dr. P.L. Tiwari is an Honourary Consultant-Cardiologist with the opposite party and as such is not in the employment of the opposite party. The opposite party merely provided the infrastructural facilities, medication and treatment under the guidance of Dr. P.L. Tiwari. It is further suggested that the condition of the patient had deteriorated substantially at the hospital of Dr. Rane. There was complete heart blockade and drop in blood pressure and for better management, the patient was admitted to Bombay Hospital. At the hospital of Dr. Rane, I.V. Nitroglycerine injection was given. P.L. Tiwari. It is further suggested that the condition of the patient had deteriorated substantially at the hospital of Dr. Rane. There was complete heart blockade and drop in blood pressure and for better management, the patient was admitted to Bombay Hospital. At the hospital of Dr. Rane, I.V. Nitroglycerine injection was given. Kabipinare injection of about 15 lakh units was administered, but since the patient was having menstruation, there was rise in the bleeding from the vagina of the patient. Briefly stated, Dr. De has suggested that the patient was already in a critical condition when admitted to the Bombay Hospital, and that the hospital gave the treatment which could be the best treatment and in that light, it is contended that the complaint deserves no consideration. 6.Now, the main allegation is that the insulin was not administered to the patient between 7.00 p.m. of 8-11-93 to 7.00 a.m. of 9-11-1993. In the Discharge Certificate issued by Dr. Rane, it is clearly indicated that the patient was suffering from Acute Interolateral wall Myocardial Infarction with Diabetes Mellitus. There was chest pain. For Diabetes, tablet Diabenese were given. The E.C.G. on 8-11-1993 showed Acute inferior wall Myocardial Infarction with C.H.B with decapitation of 'R' wave in VI to V3. ASMI. The ECG showed that there was complete heart block and decapitation of 'R' waves in VI to V3. The Heart Rate came down to 32-35/min. and the blood pressure dropped down to 90 mm of Hg systolic. Emergency pacing was done under L.A. with all aseptic precautions rate kept at 70/min. Pacemaker pacing well at M.A. 2.0 I.V. Dopamine drip started (4 ampules of Dopamine added to 500 ml 5% Glucose). The details of the treatment are given in the discharge certificate and it is stated that insulin was given 4 units, 8 units, 12 units and 16 units. We may refer to the affidavit of Dr. Rane in this behalf. Dr. Rane has filed an affidavit on 30-9-1997 and it shows that he is a qualified Cardiologist. He has stated that Kamlesh was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiac problem, for which she was given the necessary treatment. At the time of discharge, the patient was on an Insulin drip, which drip accompanied the patient at the time the patient was taken away from Dr. Rane's Hospital to the Bombay Hospital in the van of Bombay Hospital. He has stated that Kamlesh was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiac problem, for which she was given the necessary treatment. At the time of discharge, the patient was on an Insulin drip, which drip accompanied the patient at the time the patient was taken away from Dr. Rane's Hospital to the Bombay Hospital in the van of Bombay Hospital. He has emphatically stated that in a given situation, administration of insulin was a must to control the Diabetes in view of heart problem of Kamlesh. In his hospital, all along he was administering insulin to her. As the complainant desired to transfer the patient to Bombay Hospital for better management, Dr. Rane allowed him to do so. The patient needed admission to Intensive Care Unit and accordingly, she was removed in the Intensive Coronary Care Van of the Bombay Hospital as a measure of abundant caution. In the Medical report dated 6-11-1993, issued by Dr. M. Vishwanathan of Chembur, the Blood Sugar was found at 280 mgms% in the random sample with oral ingestion of 100 gms. Glucose. From this certificate as well as from the discharge card issued by Dr. Rane it is evident that the patient had heart blockade along with Diabetes Mellitus. Dr. Rane treated the patient continuously with insulin since the patient had to be given Dextrose solution with Dopamine to control the blood pressure which tends to fall in the case of cardiac blockade, but at the same time raise the blood sugar level. 7.Now, at the hospital of the opposite party, we find that the patient was conscious, drowsy but not dyspnoeic. Pulse was 60/min. B.P. 120/80. JVP was not raised, lungs were clear, no adventitious sounds and liver and spleen were not palpable. The patient was thus, more or less stable at the time of admission to the Bombay Hospital. However, when Dr. Vaswani carried out CVP by inserting a central line, the CVP was found to be 28 cm of water. This finding coupled with ST elevation in right sided chest documented inferior myocardial, with lungs clear and there was, thus, diagnosis of Right Ventricular Infarction. On 9-11-1993, the Respiratory rate was 34/min. and Blood Pressure 100/70. The patient was thus obviously restless. The Blood sugar levels suggested Diabetic Ketoacidosis. This finding coupled with ST elevation in right sided chest documented inferior myocardial, with lungs clear and there was, thus, diagnosis of Right Ventricular Infarction. On 9-11-1993, the Respiratory rate was 34/min. and Blood Pressure 100/70. The patient was thus obviously restless. The Blood sugar levels suggested Diabetic Ketoacidosis. The Laboratory reports of the Bombay Hospital clearly show that on 8-11-1993, the blood sugar was 734 mgm% and HCO3 8.6 mmol/L and here, these findings supported the diagnosis of the Diabetic Ketoacidosis. The Hospital should have taken the measurements of Ketone either in blood plasma or in urine, but the same was not done and this meant that the hospital was not serious about the high blood sugar level. It will be also found that on 9-11-1993, at about 7.30 a.m., the blood sugar was 580 mgm% with HCO3 8. Ommol/L suggestive of continuing diabetic acidosis. The hospital papers indicate that the insulin was given for the first time at about 8.00 a.m. Upto that time, therapy to control diabetic ketoacidosis was not instituted. 8.We have carefully gone through the medical papers used by the Hospital and it clearly shows that the Nurses noting refers to Antrapid 10 Units at 8.00 a.m. on 9-11-93. There is no reference whatsoever to Insulin drip between 8-11-1993 to 9-11-1993 upto 7.30 a.m. Even the vouchers about the medicines purchased by the complainant do not show that either insulin or insulin needle was asked for from the complainant before 9-11-1993. It is only in the bill of 9-11-1993 that insulin finds place. The prescription issued by the hospital also does not support the administration of insulin by the hospital till 9-11-1993. Although, the hospital has denied these prescriptions, they are purchase vouchers of the Bombay Chemist and Reliable Chemist within the campus of the Hospital, which show that the insulin was not asked till 9-11-1993. 9.We may here point out that even in the Written Statement and the affidavit of Mr. De, the administration of insulin is not at all highlighted, because the same is not supported by the documentary evidence of the hospital. 10.At this stage, Shri Kamath has draw our attention to the literature titled as "CIMS 5 MINUTE CLINICAL ASSIST issued by Williams Wilkins, wherein there is reference to Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA). It is stated that DKA is a true medical emergency arising out of deficiency in insulin. 10.At this stage, Shri Kamath has draw our attention to the literature titled as "CIMS 5 MINUTE CLINICAL ASSIST issued by Williams Wilkins, wherein there is reference to Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA). It is stated that DKA is a true medical emergency arising out of deficiency in insulin. It may cause Hypotension and that the treatment is insulin having goals to increase rate of glucose utilization by insulin dependent tissues. This is with a view to reverse ketonemia and acidosis. According to the literature, the blood sugar shall be deemed to have elevated when the reading is 250-800 mg/dL. Now, we have pointed out that the patient was admitted for Acute Myocardial Infarction with Diabetes Mellitus and that can be seen both from the certificate of Dr. Rane and on the admission notes of Bombay Hospital. At the time of admission, the patient was drowsy, but there was no ketoacidosis. The patient had heart block and decapitation of 'R' wave in VI to V3 and that there was also Diabetes Mellitus and by way of continuous treatment, insulin was administered in the multiple units of 4 to 16. Dr. Rane has stated on oath that the patient was shifted with insulin treatment in the van. The previous certificates issued by Sterling Hospital for the month of August 1993, clearly show that the patient was a Diabetic patient and that sugar was present in the urine. The said certificate is issued by Dr. S.T. Bhonsle. 11.We find that with the rise in SGOT levels (Serum Glutamic Oxaloacetic Tranaminase), LDA (Lectate Dehydrongenase and CPK (Creatinine Kinase) could be indicator of infarction. We find that the certificate of Bombay Hospital dated 8-11-1993, clearly shows that the blood sugar was 734 mg%. CPK was found at H 656 mu/ml, STOT at H 1140 mu/ml, LDH H 6605 mu/ml and HCO3 content L 8.6 mmol/ L. Now, these readings are either too high or too low comparing with the normal range. Here there is a scope to conclude that Ketoacidosis was not recognised. The readings more particularly, SGOT, CPK, LDH given are very high above the normal range. HCO3 content is L 8.9 mmol/L comparing to 21-30 mmol/L being the normal range. It has been urged that these are the signs of Ketoacidosis having set in. Here there is a scope to conclude that Ketoacidosis was not recognised. The readings more particularly, SGOT, CPK, LDH given are very high above the normal range. HCO3 content is L 8.9 mmol/L comparing to 21-30 mmol/L being the normal range. It has been urged that these are the signs of Ketoacidosis having set in. There is a medical literature, which go to show that in such a situation, administration of insulin at short intervals is a must to reverse the Ketoacidosis, else the consequences would be fatal. It is stated that Diabetic Ketoacidosis cannot be reversed without insulin. Even insulin of 50 or more units have to be given per hour until Ketoacidosis is reversed. However, even the lower dose would do, but the same must be administered every hour. The measure caused for Myocardial Infarction arises out of Ketoacidosis. The mortality is much in such cases. With such Medical literature, supporting the contentions of the complainant that insulin was not administered from 7.30 p.m. of 8-11-93 to 8.00 a.m. of 9-11-93 shall have to be accepted. The affidavit in reply given by the complainant, clearly shows that no attempt was made to administer insulin and this is supported by the cash vouchers purchased by the complainant at the instance of Hospital Authorities. The insulin was purchased on 9-11-93 and certainly not on 8-11-1993. The Blood Sugar readings for both the days is more than 500 mg% and that is indeed the dangerous level. It is stated that complications arising out of Diabetic Ketoacidosis can be Myocardial Infarction. This is symptomised by chest pain, Hypotension or appearance of heart failure. In this case we find that there was Myocardial Infarction and Hypotension as well, and for that purpose Dextrose coupled with Dopamine was administered. However, this should have drawn the attention of the doctors attending on the patient to see that the sugar level is kept low by administering insulin. The record of the Hospital does not show that insulin was administered between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. of 9-11-1993. We feel that this is clearly serious negligence on the part of the Hospital. However, this should have drawn the attention of the doctors attending on the patient to see that the sugar level is kept low by administering insulin. The record of the Hospital does not show that insulin was administered between 7.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. of 9-11-1993. We feel that this is clearly serious negligence on the part of the Hospital. 12.In the case of (Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and others)1, reported in 1995(6) Supreme Court Cases Page 651, Supreme Court has observed that the standard of care has been amply demonstrated by Mc Nair, J. In the case of (Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee)2, reported in 1957(1) WLR 582 . The wording is very pertinent. "But where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill. The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill; it is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art." In A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 128 Pg., the Supreme Court in the case of (Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Trimbak Bapu Godbole)3, observed that, "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law require." The point which has been raised on behalf of the Hospital is that the hospital provided only infrastructure and not the medicial assistance. However, we find that hospital cannot take shelter under this pretext in view of the judgment of the State Commission in the case of Heirs of deceased A.H. Shah v. Bombay Hospital, where it was held that the hospital was liable for the negligence in post operative care of the deceased. We believe that the above contention that the hospital is not responsible has to be rejected. That was a case against Bombay Hospital only. It is observed by the Tamil Nadu State Commission in the case of (R. Gopinath v. Eskeycee Medical Foundation)5, reported in 1993(1) C.P.R. Page 456 that, "It is now well settled that hospital authorities are liable to the patient for injury caused to him by the negligence or other fault of the doctors, surgeons, nurses, anesthetists and other members of the hospital in the course of their work." 13.We do not have any affidavit on behalf of any of the hospital staff attending on the deceased to show that the insulin was administered or that the particular doctor was responsible for the wrong treatment. We, therefore, feel that the hospital authorities are responsible for the gross negligence shown in the treatment of deceased Kamlesh by not administering insulin. The insulin administration was required at regular intervals, but there was a clear gap of eight to ten hours and this was one of the causes of the death of the patient. Diabetes Mellitus has been one of the causes behind the death of Kamlesh. The Death Certificate issued by the Hospital clearly shows that the patient died because of the Cardio Respiratory failure due to Acute Myocardial Infarction with Diabetes Mellitus. The certificate about the cause of death issued by the Corporation shows that Kamlesh died because of Cardiorespiratory Failure secondary to Cardiogenic shock with Antecedent causes Acute Myocardial Infarction and Diabetes Mellitus condition. The Death Certificate issued by the Hospital clearly shows that the patient died because of the Cardio Respiratory failure due to Acute Myocardial Infarction with Diabetes Mellitus. The certificate about the cause of death issued by the Corporation shows that Kamlesh died because of Cardiorespiratory Failure secondary to Cardiogenic shock with Antecedent causes Acute Myocardial Infarction and Diabetes Mellitus condition. This certificate would clearly show that Diabetes Mellitus is one of the principle reasons which brought about termination of Kamlesh. It is also medically established that Acute Diabetes Mellitus leads to Cardio Respiratory failure leading to Cardiogenic Shock. It is amply demonstrated in the record of Dr. Rane and also in the record of the hospital that Kamlesh suffered Acute Myocardial Infarction coupled with Diabetes Mellitus. We are, therefore, of the view that the hospital is indeed guilty of deficiency in service. Briefly speaking, when there was mandatory duty on the part of the hospital to administer insulin, the hospital failed to act in that direction for complete period of eight to ten hours. The situation required the administration of insulin per hour and the gap of 8-10 hours should certainly invite the conclusion that there was deficiency in service by the Hospital. 14.We are of the view that Doctors should mount all round attack on all fronts when the patient is under heart blockade and actually diabetic. All standard modes of treatment should be adopted. Doctors should not relent in their efforts under the pretext that the patient was in abyss and could not be retrieved. The lapse in treatment under this pretext in not forgivable and has to be visited with compensation. Human Anatomy in unpredictable and cases of strange results in the terminally ill patients are not unknown. Doctors must therefore administer the standard treatment even in cases where they have a feeling that they are fighting a losing battle. Their efforts must go down as testimony of their preserverance, industry and loyalty. Success is providential and the almighty is the adjudicator of it. 15.While adverting upon the amount of compensation, it has been held by the National Commission in the case of (Flame Gas Service, Bikaner others v. Aklesh Kumar Bansal others)6, reported in 1995(1) C.P.J. Page 78 that for loss of life, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs should be awarded. 16.The complainant lost his wife and he is, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs should be awarded. 16.The complainant lost his wife and he is, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on the point of loss of consortium. It has been urged that Kamlesh had three children. She was essentially the house wife engaged in performing domestic chores. She is no more available to the family. The husband would be required to engage the services of male or female servant and for that purpose we are of the view that for all the function that were performed by Kamlesh, her husband would be required to spent Rs. 1,000/- per month. Kamlesh was 45 years old. The expentancy of life could be next 15 years and on that count, the amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000/-. Rs. 20,000/- should be awarded for the cost At this stage, we must also refer to the valuable services rendered by Dr. M.S. Kamath. He volunteered to fight for the case of the complainant, who is otherwise, not equipped to contest the medical cases. Dr. Kamath laboured for securing the medical literature in support of his propositions that want of administration of insulin to Kamlesh led to the fatal end. We commend his elucidations on the medicial aspect of the case and possibly it is because of his intensive efforts that we have come to the above conclusion that hospital is guilty and liable to pay compensation. His voluntary services should be rewarded by awarding him Rs. 5,000/- for the reason that he has been attending the case for more than two years and has been sacrificing his medicial practice. 17.Before parting with this matter, we are constrained to observe that the Hospital Authorities did not prosecute the matter as diligently as it should have. Adjournments were granted from time to time. Witnesses were not kept present. Nor any cause shown in that behalf. Hence the matter proceeded on arguments only. We feel that oral evidence would not have made up the absence of relevant documentary evidence. We, therefore, pass the following order:--- O R D E R 18."The Opposite party-Bombay Hospital Medicial Research Centre shall pay Rs. 4,50,000/- with 12% interest thereon from the date of complaint till actual payment. The said Hospital and Centre shall further deposit Rs. 5000/- with the State Commission for being paid over to Dr. M.S. Kamath". Compensation granted.