ORDER Dr. P.D. Shenoy, Member—This is a case of the complainant that his mother suffered stroke on 17.6.2004 at 9.30 a.m. He immediately took her for treatment at Shanti Mukund Hospital (in short ‘Hospital’). He was asked to deposit Rs. 1100/- for admission. The complainant deposited Rs. 2,500/- in cash but the doctors did not attend the ailing mother of the complainant. The Doctors started treatment at about 11.45 a.m. when the complainant deposited further amount of Rs. 5,000/- after borrowing it from his friend. Even after the death of his mother at 2 p.m. on 18.6.2004, the staff handed over a prescription to get the medicine for treatment. 2. Therefore, the complainant, Shri Bhimsen Malik filed a complaint before the District Forum. This was contested by the Hospital stating that the patient was a high risk patient and was brought in a precarious condition and the treatment was started in the casualty itself. It was denied by the Hospital that the treatment was not started till the second instalment was deposited and hence there was no negligence. 3. The District Forum held that the affidavit of the person who had brought the patient to the hospital at about 10.00 a.m. did not inspire confidence as he was resident of E-27 and against this version of the OP hospital was that the patient was brought at 11.25 a.m. and after depositing the requisite amount, she was admitted at 12.40 p.m. and there was no evidence to show that the medicines prescribed by the hospital were not required. 4. The State Commission held that there was no reason for : the District Forum to disbelieve the affidavit of an independent person that he dropped the patient at the hospital at 10 a.m. and observed as under:- “Even if we accept that she was brought at 11.25 a.m. still her treatment was not started till 2.00 p.m. as copy of the bill showing the advance payment by way of receipt No.7265 shows the time as 2.19 p.m.” 5. The State Commission further observed that no records showing that any treatment was started till 12.45 p.m. by that time the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited. When a patient develops sudden cardiac arrest or collapses the entire team in the ICU should swing into action and administer life saving drugs, which are in stock of the ICU. The State Commission further observed that no records showing that any treatment was started till 12.45 p.m. by that time the balance of Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited. When a patient develops sudden cardiac arrest or collapses the entire team in the ICU should swing into action and administer life saving drugs, which are in stock of the ICU. Subsequently a list should be made out and handed over to the relatives of the patient for replacement. This was not done in this case. Therefore, for not admitting and treating the patient immediately who was brought in life threatening condition, the State Commission allowed the appeal by awarding a token amount of lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- besides Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, this Revision petition has been filed before us. 7. In the Observation chart of the first day, the recording are shown only from 12 p.m. onwards, which means that no treatment was started prior to that in the ICU . 8. This Commission in Pravat Kumar Mukherjee v. Ruby General Hospital1 observed as follows: “Can the doctors insist and wait for the money (fees) when death knocks at the doors of a patient? Obviously, the answer is recovery of fee can wait - but not death - nor the treatment to save life. Preservation of human life is of paramount - importance. That is so on account of the fact that once a life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection is beyond the capacity of man. Therefore, an injured citizen brought for medical treatment should be instantaneously given medical aid to preserve life’. Further, the Commission also held: “But, in a critical case where relative of the patient is not available, it becomes the duty of such physician or surgeon to be mindful of the high character of his mission and the responsibility in the discharge of his duties. So far as this duty of medical profession is concerned, it is coupled with human instinct and needs no decision or any code of ethics nor any rule of law. In such cases, the life is in the hands of a doctor.” The ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the case under consideration. 9. So far as this duty of medical profession is concerned, it is coupled with human instinct and needs no decision or any code of ethics nor any rule of law. In such cases, the life is in the hands of a doctor.” The ratio of this case is squarely applicable to the case under consideration. 9. In the instant case it is obvious that the treatment did not start till the total fees are deposited though initially some amount was deposited. 10. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this Revision Petition. Therefore it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Revision dismissed. ******