RAGHUNATH PRASAD, J. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the "act") against judgment and order dated 9-8-1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bulandshahr in Complaint Case No. 412 of 1992. 2. The complainants initially filed a complaint under Section 12 of the "act" with the allegations that during the course of pregnancy of Smt. Tyagi complainant No. 1 Capt. Atul Tyagi and complainant No. 2 Smt. Garima Tyagi, who are husband and wife respectively, consulted the opposite party/appellant who opined for delivery in her Nursing Home. On being given to understand that the opposite party was competent enough to look to the delivery cases, the complainant No. 2 was consulting for her well being as well as for the well being of the child in the womb. Even after Ultrasound tests made twice it was opined by the opposite party that the child is progressing normally and it will be a case of normal delivery. In the complaint it was further asserted that the complainants were assured also by the opposite party, that she has a qualified team of doctors to look into the affairs of pregnancy which made them to believe that everything will be normal during the days rolled on and the outcome will be a safe delivery. It was further pleaded that on 22-6-1992, the complainant No. 2 after experiencing symptoms of birth giving, consulted the opposite party who got her admitted in her Nursing Home and appellant even then assured her that it will be a case of normal delivery and was advised by Dr. Parihar that he should wait for the normal delivery. However, during the course of her admission, at no point of time, progress was monitored by Dr. Parihar although she came to see the complainant No. 2. Dr. Parihar went to her home at 3. 00 p. m. leaving her all alone and during her absence there was no doctor or Nurse in the Nursing Home. In the meantime she started experiencing a lot of pain and she also sent a servant from the Nursing Home to fetch the doctor, but she did not turn up instead it was told that she would not come until and unless one hour. The complainant was allowed to remain in a critical condition upto 4. 00 p. m. Then it was noticed by Dr. The complainant was allowed to remain in a critical condition upto 4. 00 p. m. Then it was noticed by Dr. Parihar that the heart beat is very low which got her disturbed and she decided to operate. Even at that time the facilities for operation were not available and even the tools were not there in the Nursing Home. Then after a lapse of 45 minutes the dissection tools were requisitioned from nearby Kakkar Nursing Home. Subsequently the delivery of the child through Caesarean was done and the child was found dead. It was also pleaded that the opposite party is only M. D. in Anaesthesiology and not in Gynaecology. It was also pleaded that in all the papers of the Nursing Home, she posed herself to be M. D. in Gynaecology. Specifically it was pleaded that due to inordinate delay in operation, apathy in administration of proper treatment, wrong administration of anaesthesia and due to non- taking the proper steps for getting the cords being removed from the neck and non-availability of other assisting team of doctors at the time of operation, cord around the neck tightened causing the foetal distress due to asphyxia and hypoxia. In all Rs. 99,300 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum as compensation for causing the death of full term baby in womb was claimed. 3. In the written statement, the opposite party admitted the consultation and admission as stated, but the allegation of negligence was vehemently denied and it was asserted that at 4. 30 p. m. on 22-6-1992 two important phenomena developed all of a sudden, i. e. firstly the symptoms of bradycardia were noted and it was found that the heart beat of the child in the womb were showing down in number and secondly the symptoms of muconium were also observed as the first foetal stool has passed in the womb. These symptoms were alarming and pointing towards foetal distress and as such immediate operation became essential to save the life of the child as well as the mother. This development took place suddenly because of the cord being got entangled in the neck of the child. The specific plea taken was that the cord around the neck tightened causing the above phenomena of foetal distress due to asphyxia and hypoxia. This development took place suddenly because of the cord being got entangled in the neck of the child. The specific plea taken was that the cord around the neck tightened causing the above phenomena of foetal distress due to asphyxia and hypoxia. It was further pleaded that regular monitoring of foetal heart rate was done and it was found that this foetal bradycardia was persistent and increasing and under these circumstances the patient was shifted inside the operation theatre and 100% oxygen was given to the mother for ten minutes to improve foetal condition but the distress continued and after administration of anaesthesia to the patient, the part of the operation was painted and draped and operation was started. Ultimately the baby was delivered out per abdomen at 5. 08 p. m. and immediately the child was handed over to Paediatrician. Contrary allegations of medical negligence were refuted and compensation claimed was denied as not justified. 4. In support of their case, the complainants preferred affidavits of Capt. Atul Tyagi and Smt. Garima Tyagi, Smt. Anita Tyagi. Smt. Asha Tyagi, Mr. Amit Kumar, Owais Husain Beni and rejoinder-affidavit of Smt. Anita Tyagi and Smt. Asha Tyagi. Even the medical prescriptions and medical certificates payment receipt, certificate of Dr. Garg Nursingh Home, medical certificate of Dr. Shailesh Kumar, New Delhi were filed whereas the opposite party filed affidavits of herself Dr. Usha Parihar, Dr. Naheed Chauhan, Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar, Dr. V. V. Yadav, Dr. Rakesh Kakkar and Dr. Beenu Pankaj and since excerpts from the books relating to concerned medical literature. 5. The learned District Forum, after perusing the material available on record and hearing the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, passed the impugned judgment and order. 6. Aggrieved against the same the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri M. H. Khan duly assisted by Dr. Parihar and learned Counsel for respondent Sri T. H. Naqvi assisted by Capt. Tyagi. 8. 6. Aggrieved against the same the opposite party has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order. 7. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant Sri M. H. Khan duly assisted by Dr. Parihar and learned Counsel for respondent Sri T. H. Naqvi assisted by Capt. Tyagi. 8. Sri Khan in support of the appeal submitted the following submissions: The finding that appellant was not possessed of necessary minimum qualifications and as such she was incompetent to perform the surgical operation and she was not equipped of the competent personnel to attend delivery cases in the Nursing Home is not sustainable in view of the facts and law. Secondly the finding of District Forum that the negligence was committed during the course of operation and just prior to the operation, are totally uncalled for. 9. As regards the first argument is concerned, that holds water partially. The appellant, after completing M. B. B. S. obtained the degree of M. D. in Anaesthesiology. In her affidavit it has been specifically stated by her that during the course till 1992-93 she had done more than 400 caesarean cases and approximately 1,000 delivery cases since she started practice independently in the year 1986. It has also been specifically stated that she is in the active Nursing Home practice of Gynaecology and Obstetrics since the year 1986. The factum that she is M. B. B. S. is not denied M. B. B. S. is a degree in which one gets education and training on four branches of Medical field, such as General Medicine, General Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Social and Preventive Medicine. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is no certificate of Gynaecology is neither here nor there. She has been attached with the Nursing Home earlier to her independent running of the Nursing Home concerned with the work of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. The specific averments that she has done 400 caesarean operations and approximately more than 4,000 deliveries independently since the running of the Nursing Home independently has not been denied on any count by the complainant. There is no Statute, Rules and Regulations referred on the subject that an M. B. B. S. doctor is not qualified to perform caesarean operation in Surinder Kumar (Laddi) & Anr. v. Dr. Santosh Menon & Ors. There is no Statute, Rules and Regulations referred on the subject that an M. B. B. S. doctor is not qualified to perform caesarean operation in Surinder Kumar (Laddi) & Anr. v. Dr. Santosh Menon & Ors. , 2000 (1) CPR 23 , a similar question cropped up and it was held that it is quite clear that an M. B. B. S. doctor having obtained degree from the University was competent to practise medicine, surgery and Gynaecology and caesarean operation is part of the Surgery. Over and above it is a case when the statistics furnished by her show that she is quite experienced one. That being so the finding that she was not competent enough to perform caesarean operation is a finding which is not sustainable in the eye of law. Exclusive expertise, i. e. Masters degree of M. D. in Gynaecology is not a requirement at all. 10. The next argument of Sri Khan is that no negligence at all was committed by Dr. Parihar either during the course of admission on 22-6-1992 at 8. 00 a. m. to 4. 30 p. m. and during the course of operation between 4. 30 p. m. to 5. 08 p. m. Whether negligence at all was committed or not is a matter of judicial scrutiny and appreciation of evidence available on record. Prior to the appreciation of facts, it has to be seen as to what is "deficiency in medical service," what is the "test of standard medical care" and in the case it can be held that a doctor is guilty of medical negligence and other allied matters can be viewed in the light of ratios and the provisions of "act". The term. "service" is defined in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Act, which means that "service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes but not limited the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging of both, (housing, construction), entertainment, amusement of the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. " 11. " 11. The term "deficiency" is defined in Section 2 (1) (g) which means "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to service. " 12. Now it is already settled in Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shanta, (1995) 6 SCC 651 , that the person obtaining the medical service after payment is a "consumer" within the meaning of the Act and is covered under the definition of the term "service. " The term "deficiency" for the purpose of this case means any fault or imperfection or shortcoming in view of the contract of service undertaken by Dr. Parihar. It has been held in V. P. Shanthas case that the doctor has duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of care in the administration of the treatment. The doctor must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. He need not possess the highest expert skill. It is sufficient if he exercises ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular act. 13. Approach of Court is to require that professional men should possess a certain minimum degree of competence and that they should exercise reasonable care in the discharge of their duties" A. S. Mittal v. State of A. P. , AIR 1989 SC 1570 . A doctor owes certain duties in particular viz. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding which treatment to give or a duty of care in administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties gives 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 requires. 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 requires. The doctor no doubt has the discretion in choosing the treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency. They should find him guilty when he had fallen short of the standard of reasonable care, when he was deserving of censure vide Dr. Laxman B. Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Gadbole, AIR 1969 SC 128 : "courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on part of a doctor, if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. . . . . . In cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts is maintainable Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (2) Scale 328 : AIR 1996 SC 2377 . " 14. A bona fide mistake may be excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. . . . . . . Gross medical mistake will always result in finding negligence. . . In some situations, principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied. Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia, 1998 AIR SCW 1590 : AIR 1998 SC 1801 . 15. "negligence must be established and not presumed Kanhaiya Kumar Singh v. Park Medicare, III (1999) CPJ 9 : 1999 CTJ 644 (NCDRC); Mrs. Kiran Bala Rout v. Christian Medical College, II (2002) CPJ 131 (NCDRC ). In absence of expert evidence on behalf of complainant, no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against affidavits filed by doctors - Seturam Subramanyam v. Trivedi Nursing Home, (1998) CPJ 110 (NCDRC)". 16. Thus, the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and possessing. If for special skill a man need not possess the highest expert skill, it is still established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular act. 16. Thus, the test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and possessing. If for special skill a man need not possess the highest expert skill, it is still established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular act. The onus of proving negligence and resultant deficiency in service is on the complainant vide Calcutta Medical Research Institute v. Venkatesh Chatterji & Ors. , (1995) CPJ 13 (NCDRC) and Consumer Protection Council v. D. M. Sundaram, II (1998) CPJ 3 (NCDRC ). 17. In an action for negligence in tort against a Surgeon, the Honble Supreme Court in Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole (supra) has held as under: "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, namely, 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. " 18. The breach of duty may be occasioned either not doing something which a reasonable man, under a given circumstances which can, or, by doing some act which a reasonable prudent man would not do. In Poonam Verma v. A. Patel & Ors. , (II) 1996 CPJ 1 (SC), it has been held that "where a person is negligent of guilty, per se, no further proof is needed. The term "negligence per se" is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as "conduct, whether or action or omission, which is the particular surrounding circumstance either because it is in violation of statute or valid municipal Ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed in then dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. " 19. After appreciating the documentary and oral evidence in the light of the aforesaid ratios and observations made, we are of the view that for the following reasons, the death of the full term baby occurred because of the medical negligence committed by appellant Dr. Parihar on 22-6-1992 in between 3. 00 p. m. to 5. 08 p. m. in the Nursing Home. 20. Parihar on 22-6-1992 in between 3. 00 p. m. to 5. 08 p. m. in the Nursing Home. 20. Vide Medical Literature "silent RISK" about "issues about the Human Umbilical Cord", published by Churchill Livingstone, the effect of a body loop is cord impression. Tight loops make impression on the skin of the foetus and can restrict foetal movement in the uterus. Loops around the extremity can affect circulation of the extremity and cause damage to a foot or a hand. Circulation disturbance can sometimes form blood clots in the arteries, vein, or a placenta. These events can change the oxygen supply to the foetus and cause disturbance or death. As the foetus descends the cord tightens, the blood supply is interrupted and the baby is stillborn. This is one cause of sudden acute foetal distress. In this case, the cause of death has not been ascertained by Dr. Parihar. In view of what has been detailed in literature, it can be presumed that in this case tight loops had made impression on the skin of the foetus restricting the foetal movements in the uterus and as such foetus descended the cord tightened resulting into interruption of blood supply making the baby still born. Bed Head Ticket shows taking of no steps whatsoever for removing of three tight loops of cords. In the instant case, according to the appellant, the patient was admitted at 4. 30 p. m. inside the operation theatre. The baby was delivered out per abdomen at 5. 08 p. m. and three tight loops of cord were found around the neck of the baby which were disentangled. 21. According to Dr. Parihar, as stated in paragraph 33 of the written statement, at 4. 20 p. m. on 22-6- 1992, slowing down in number 104/min of the heart beat, i. e. bradycardia and the symptom of muconium as the first foetal stool passed in the womb were noticed necessitating for operation and as per her statement these two phenomena developed all of a sudden. However, in paragraph 32, she speaks of constant surveillance in case of noticing foetal distress to see whether this distress is being relieved or increasing and she insists for caesarean operation if the foetal distress persists or increases. However, in the instant case as per bed head ticket at 4. However, in paragraph 32, she speaks of constant surveillance in case of noticing foetal distress to see whether this distress is being relieved or increasing and she insists for caesarean operation if the foetal distress persists or increases. However, in the instant case as per bed head ticket at 4. 20 p. m. she announced all of a sudden foetal distress without constant surveillance and taking steps to relieve the distress. The theory of declaring the foetal distress all of a sudden at 4. 20 p. m. is a concocted version. Even no steps were taken by her for retention of optimum heart beat. As per bed head ticket at 9. 20 a. m. FHR was 144/minute, at 2. 00 p. m. FHR was 144/minute, at 3. 45 p. m. FHR was 144 minute, at 4. 00 p. m. FHR was 136/minute and at 4. 20 p. m. FHR was 104/minute and at 4. 30 p. m. FHR was 92/minute. These are obviously procured and prepared chart. Even if it is admitted that these documents are correct, it will not better the situation. Foetal distress was announced at 4. 20 p. m. , but no surveillance, much less any management, to relieve the distress was done. Even at this stage no decision for caesarean operation was taken. Even the preliminaries of obtaining the consent for caesarean operation of guardian by them were taken. Even in the bed head ticket, at 4. 30 p. m. formal decision of Dr. Parihar for caesarean operation is not noted and even by 4. 30 p. m. the consent of guardian for operation has not been taken. All that is written is "consent to be taken for CS". Even the consent form does not mention as to at what time the consent was taken. 22. In Operation Notes, in the list of names of doctors, the name of Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar does not find place. How then baby could be handed over to him for resuscitation is self explained and could not be an acceptable fact. 23. The specific case of the complainants is that Dr. Usha Parihar knew it very well before embarking upon the operation that the child was dead inside the womb and it was necessary to take it out of womb. Consequently she also did the job of Anaeshetist and no other doctor including Dr. B. B. Yadav, Dr. 23. The specific case of the complainants is that Dr. Usha Parihar knew it very well before embarking upon the operation that the child was dead inside the womb and it was necessary to take it out of womb. Consequently she also did the job of Anaeshetist and no other doctor including Dr. B. B. Yadav, Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar and Dr. (Mrs.) Nahid Chauhan was present at the time of operation of complainant No. 2. The case in rebuttal of Dr. Parihar is that because of sudden foetal distress, consequent to the decision, operation was done by her duly assisted by Dr. (Mrs.) Nahid Chauhan as Assistant Surgeon, Dr. B. B. Yadav as Anaesthetist and Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar as Paediatrician. Complainants, while on one hand, alleged, averred, pleaded and lead evidence about negligence by Dr. Parihar, on the other hand, the same was emphatically denied by Dr. Parihar. However, both in turn, in their attempts to prove their stand, have, come as stated earlier, with the set of witnesses. The law of the land is crystal clear on the testimony of interested witnesses. Simply because the witnesses are relatives, and interested, their testimonies cannot be thrown away. Rule of care and caution will have to be applied and their evidence will be viewed with close circumspection and if so viewed, evidence is held true on the test of reliability, the same can be accepted and acted upon. 24. Affidavits of Dr. Usha Parihar, Dr. Nahid Chauhan, Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar and Dr. B. B. Yadav speak in one volume supporting the case of Dr. Parihar as pleaded in written statement, but on scrutiny of their evidence, when examined before the learned District Forum, their truthfulness evaporates and their evidence is found self contradictory and is found to be an outcome to support Dr. Parihar in one or the other way, because of their being the partners of a Diagnostic Center at Bulandshahr. Thus, we lean unhesitatingly to concur with the findings of District Forum that Dr. Nahid Chauhan and Dr. B. B. Yadav were not the Members of the team of Dr. Usha Parihar at the time of operation and the presence of Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar was subsequently procured to prepare the "baby Note" after the dead male baby taken out of womb. To support our conclusion, we draw the attention to some of the stunning features. B. B. Yadav were not the Members of the team of Dr. Usha Parihar at the time of operation and the presence of Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar was subsequently procured to prepare the "baby Note" after the dead male baby taken out of womb. To support our conclusion, we draw the attention to some of the stunning features. In bed head ticket, "anaesth Notes" is not in the handwriting of Dr. B. B. Yadav, but it is noted in same sequence, in the handwriting of Dr. Parihar. Dr. Yadav, when cross-examined before District Forum, Bulandshahr, states that he administered Nitrous Oxide and Oxygen in 5:3 proportion to make Garima Tyagi unconscious during operation and no other injections were administered, but "anaesth Notes belie and disprove such statements and it contains: - Oxygenation - Inj. Intra-vals. sod. 250 mg. i/v - Inj. Scoline i/v Maintenance O2 + N2o Ether after of foetus Reflexes ++ at the end of operation. 25. This clearly proves that he was not present during the course of operation as Anaesthetist. Not only that Dr. Yadav admits that averments contained in para 6 of his affidavit have been reproduced as per dictates and direction of Dr. Parihar, Dr. Nahid Chauhan, Asstt. Surgeon in the cross-examination has stated that in the operation theatre, she found on examination FHR is 120/minute but in bed head ticket at 4. 30 p. m. , noted FHR is 92/minute, which is self contradictory. If it is accepted that Dr. Chauhan was correct, then it is not a case of foetal distress. Over and above; at no point of time bed head ticket was available before Dr. Chauhan. It is not her case that she was in Nursing Home of Dr. Parihar since the admission of Smt. Garima Tyagi on 22-6-1992 at 8. 30 a. m. till 5. 08 p. m. How could she then vividly describe on the linings of Dr. Parihar about the state of affairs of Smt. Garima Tyagi. It is clear that Dr. Chauhan being hand in glove, tried to extend support to Dr. Parihar out of turn and she was not present at the time of operation. As regards Dr. Nagar is concerned his name does not find its place on "op Notes" wherein only Dr. Parihar, Dr. Yadav and Dr. Chauhan are mentioned. However, in "steps Note" prepared by Dr. Chauhan being hand in glove, tried to extend support to Dr. Parihar out of turn and she was not present at the time of operation. As regards Dr. Nagar is concerned his name does not find its place on "op Notes" wherein only Dr. Parihar, Dr. Yadav and Dr. Chauhan are mentioned. However, in "steps Note" prepared by Dr. Parihar, it is mentioned "baby handed over to Paediatrician Dr. Vishwajeet Nagar for resuscitation. " Dr. Nagar in cross-examination before District Forum has admitted that note "lscs done for sudden foetal distress. Foetal Heart sound, Liquid muconum stained was not written self on his noticing but has been written on the statement of Dr. Parihar. In the "baby Note" Dr. Nagar, however, has not noted the cause of death and even the post-mortem has not been done. The noting "baby could not be saved" and "act of immediate suction being done and cardiac message given" suggest as if the child was alive at the time of taking out of womb at 5. 08 p. m. but this was not so, as found and noted by Dr. Nagar in baby note, "no heart beat, no respiratory effect. Pupils fixed and dilated. " 26. Admittedly no doctors, as aforesaid, were called by Dr. Parihar for, assisting in caesarean section of Smt. Garima Tyagi. Neither is any noting in the bed head ticket to that effect nor there is any other evidence supporting the theory of calling. Dr. Parihar, in case of Dr. Nahid Chauhan, stated that she was called whereas Dr. Chauhan stated that she came on her own volition. Dr. Yadav has stated that at that time he was going to the Nursing Home of Dr. Rakesh Kakkar. Even there is no evidence of prior assignment for assistance in the case of Smt. Garima Tyagi. 27. A pertinent question is as to when possibly the death of still born child could have taken place. If it is proved that earlier to the operation, the death had taken place in the womb, it will be a case of non- administration of treatment by Dr. Parihar making her liable for tort. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 2nd Edition at page 217 the signs of death may be classified as immediately, early and late. 0 Immediate: (1) Entire and permanent cessation of circulation and respiration. Parihar making her liable for tort. In Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 2nd Edition at page 217 the signs of death may be classified as immediately, early and late. 0 Immediate: (1) Entire and permanent cessation of circulation and respiration. Early: (2) Changes in the eye, (3) Changes in the skin, (4) Cooling of the body, (5) Cadaveric lividity, hypotasis, suggdation or post-mortem staining. Late: (6) Cadaveric changes in the muscles, (7) Putrefaction or decomposition, (8) Adipocere, and (9) Mummification. 28. Further on page 233, it has been observed that "from twelve to eighteen hours after death in summer, the green coloration spreads over the entire abdomen and the external genitals. Green patches also make their appearance successively on chest, neck, face arms and legs. These patches gradually deepen in colour, and later become purple and dark blue. They are at first separate and distinct, but later coalesce together, and the whole skin of the body appears discoloured. 29. In the instant case although there is no post-mortem report, but the observations noted by Dr. Nagar abundantly make it clear that pupils were fixed and dilated. The colour after the outcome of child was bluish. Dr. Parihar in her statement has specifically stated that she took up the decision to operate the patient at 4. 30 p. m. and at that time Dr. Nagar and Dr. Yadav were not present in their chamber. Dr. Parihar also admitted that the noting were prepared by her Bed Head Ticket according to her own knowledge and she has not written the child being still born or dead or alive. Dr. (Smt.) Nahida Chauhan in her statement stated that she does not recall the name of the staff of Dr. Parihars Nursing Home who is said to have assisted her in the operation. She has specifically stated that she had gone to the operation theatre but she did not go to the labour room. When she went to the operation theatre, she found that the patient was at the operation table and the oxygen was there. She stated that whatever averments she has made in para 7 regarding the condition of the child was not based on her own observations but is based on the statement of Dr. Parihar. 30. Dr. When she went to the operation theatre, she found that the patient was at the operation table and the oxygen was there. She stated that whatever averments she has made in para 7 regarding the condition of the child was not based on her own observations but is based on the statement of Dr. Parihar. 30. Dr. Nagar in his affidavit has specifically stated that whatever he has stated in his affidavit in paras 6 and 7, is not based on his own statement but is based on statement of Dr. Parihar. He also stated that he reached the operation theatre at 4. 25 p. m. on 22-6-1992 and when the child was taken out of the womb and handed over to him, there was no cry to breathing or beating of the heart and the child was totally bluish. He further stated that when the blood circulation of the child stops the body becomes bluish and it starts becoming bluish from 10-20 minutes. 1 31. The condition of body of ill-fated deceased child as noted by Dr. Nagar and the bluish colour of the body at the outcome suggest and prove that it was a case of death taking place about an hour or two or in between 3. 00 p. m. to 5. 08 p. m. on 22-6-1992. This state of affairs and the chaotic condition has been proved conclusively by the evidence of complainants side. 32. The patient was admitted, according to Dr. Parihar, in a hale and hearty condition at 8. 30 a. m. on 22- 6-1992, expecting a normal delivery of matured period. The question is whether monitoring of the patient was done regularly? Had it been done regularly at intervals and had it been a case as such, noticed during the course of monitoring, the result would not have been so alarming and shocking. Reference in this connection of the noting made in the Bed Head Ticket can be very material. The writings in the bed head ticket make it completely clear that it was prepared in two instalments by two persons, one Dr. Parihar and another Dr. Nagar. It shows the admission of the patient on 22-6-1992 at 8. 30 a. m. This discloses that the monitoring was done at 8. 30 a. m. , 9. 30 a. m. , 10. 30 a. m. , 12 Noon, 1. Parihar and another Dr. Nagar. It shows the admission of the patient on 22-6-1992 at 8. 30 a. m. This discloses that the monitoring was done at 8. 30 a. m. , 9. 30 a. m. , 10. 30 a. m. , 12 Noon, 1. 10 p. m. 2,00 p. m. , 2. 40 p. m. , 4. 10 p. m. and 4. 20 p. m. However, the theory of regular monitoring professed and canvassed by the appellant is not worthy of any credence. Even the naked eye shows that entries of 22-6-1992 from 8. 30 a. m. till the entry of the 3rd page is clearly prepared by Dr. Parihar with one ink in a sitting form after application of mind. If it is accepted that it was so written when the monitoring were being done, the childs condition could not have been so insecured and disturbing that the child could not have been saved by taking suitable steps by Dr. Parihar. The allegations are clear on the record in the shape of reliable and abundant evidence of the complainants and others that the Nursing Home concerned was unattended from 3. 00 p. m. to 4. 00 p. m. The message had to be sent by the ward of the suffering patient/complainant and after getting evasive reply the patient was attended at 4. 20 p. m. by Dr. Parihar and then it was found that the heart beat of the child in womb were slowing down in number of the symptoms of muconium and bradycardiac were also observed as is the first foetal stool was passing in the womb. If it was so at 4. 00 p. m. and if it was a case of monitoring, why caesarean was not immediately taken and preparation for caesarean operation was not made? In our opinion, it was in between 3. 00 p. m. to 4. 20 p. m. the child lost its life due to non- administration of appropriate treatment. 33. All these simply disclose that no monitoring was done and the patient was quite ignored and what was expected minimum of Dr. Parihar was to undergo the standard of reasonable care which has not been done at all. The findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are well accepted findings and it needs no interference. 34. 33. All these simply disclose that no monitoring was done and the patient was quite ignored and what was expected minimum of Dr. Parihar was to undergo the standard of reasonable care which has not been done at all. The findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are well accepted findings and it needs no interference. 34. The other argument of Sri Khan is that the rate of interest awarded is quite excessive. We are of the view that the compensation has already been granted on the lower side and the term "interest" is also inclusive of the inconvenience, frustration, mental pain and anxiety and as such the rate of interest as awarded is not to be interfered with. ORDEr 35. The appeal is dismissed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. However, in the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Per Vinod Shankar Chaubey, M.- I fully concur with the above judgment and order but would like also to add few sentences. If agreed and dishonesty combines with lack of skill, expertise and knowledge, it becomes disastrous especially in the field of medical service. It has been proved from the statement of Dr. Usha Parihar herself and other evidences that she is M. D. (Anaesthesia) and is working as Anaesthetist in the Nursing Home of Dr. Kakkar but she has pretended herself as M. D. in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. On the board of Nursing Home and the prescriptions she has not mentioned herself as MD (Anaesthesia) but M. D. (PRASUTI AVAM ISTRI ROG VISESAGYA)". This is to lure the patients. Another aspect is also there that most of the doctors of her team are specialists in another field but they work in another discipline for example, Dr. B. B. Yadav has received M. D. degree in Acupuncture and he has got no specialisation in the field of Anaesthesia nor he has got any degree in the discipline, but he has been shown to work as Anaesthetist in this case. The Forum in its judgment has concluded that Dr. B. B. Yadav was not at all present in Parihar Nursing Home during the course of operation. He has mentioned in his affidavit (in para 6) that the whole matter has been written on the dictation of Dr. Usha Parihar. The Forum in its judgment has concluded that Dr. B. B. Yadav was not at all present in Parihar Nursing Home during the course of operation. He has mentioned in his affidavit (in para 6) that the whole matter has been written on the dictation of Dr. Usha Parihar. Likewise Dr. Vishwajit Nagar has also admitted in his cross-examination that in the Bed Head Ticket, in baby notes he has not mentioned "lscs done sudden foetal distress" as per his knowledge but on the dictation of Dr. Usha Parihar. It is also surprising that Dr. Naheed Chauhan has stated in her cross- examination that in her affidavit (in para 7) she has mentioned about the observations of the patient on the dictation of Dr. Usha Parihar and not on her own observations. One Dr. Kakkar has also been cross- examined that in the Bulandshahr Diagnostic Centre, his family member (his father and his wife), Dr. B. B. Yadav, Dr. Mr. Parihar (husband of Dr. Usha Parihar), Dr. M. H. Chauhan (husband of Dr. Naheed Chauhan) and the members of Dr. Parihars family are partners. All these show that they are not working in the service of the patients, but are working only for extra professional gains. 37. It is also striking that the Forum in its judgment has mentioned that the learned Counsel for the opposite party during his arguments admitted that really the opposite party. Dr. Usha Parihar, started working as Anaesthetist in Bulandshahr but in this medical discipline no sufficient earning was there and that is why she decided that she should work as " (PRASUTI AVAM ISTRI ROG VISESAGYA)". 38. There is also one observation about the bed head ticket also. The writer on bed head ticket appears to be a person of very good handwriting or rather a Caligraphist. All the entries in the bed head ticket are very clean, neat, in same flow with the same size of letters with same distance between two letters etc. and it is possible only when after the demise of the child the person (Dr. Usha Parihar) has prepared it after the complaint if filed considering all the relevant aspects of medical science. 39. With these added reasons I concur with the judgment so elaborately prepared by my learned Brother, Sri Raghunath Prasad. Appeal dismiissed. .