V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. - (1.)THE complainants in O.P. No. 206 of 1992 on the file of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the order dated February 15,1993 passed by the State Commission whereby the complaint petition filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that neither the first opposite party nor the second opposite party (two medical doctors against whom the complainants had made allegations of negligence and deficiency in service and had sought recovery of compensation) was guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service.
(2.)THE complaint was instituted by a well known Consumer Organisation of Tamil Nadu by name Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu, Trichy for the benefit of one Mrs. Rajalakshmi. The said lady died on November 13,1992 during the pendency of the case before the State Commission, In brief the case put forward in the complaint was as follows:
Mrs. Rajalakshmi was admitted in Nursing Home that is being run by opposite party No.1 -Dr Sundaram on August 1,1991 win in complaint of vomitting. It is the plea of the complainants that the first opposite party negligently suspected cancer and hence had a bone marrow sample of the patient taken and sent to the second opposite party -Dr. S. Anuradha for pathological examination. According to the complainants the second opposite party acting negligently gave a report on 2.8.1991 stating that the sample showed a deposit of Hodgkin's Lymphoma in many areas. The complainants have gone on the state that without referring the case to the Cancer Specialist or taking a second opinion, opposite party No.1 started administering Endoxan injections to the patient and five doses of the said drug were given to her during the period of five days from 6.8.1991 to 10.8.1991. Thereafter Mrs. Rajalakshmi is said to have been referred by the first opposite party to one Dr. Navaneetha Krishnan an E.N.T. Specialist, who after examining her on 6.8.1991 opined that no lymph gland was seen. Allegedly becoming unsure of diagnosis and treatment the first opposite party is said to have sent a slide of the bone marrow sample to one Dr. Subramaniam an Oncologist during his visit to Trichy. Dr. Subramaniam after seeing the slides is said to have given his report stating that the clinical picture does not fit with Hodgkin's disease but the patient had Myclopthylic anaemia in the marrow. Mrs. Rajalakshmi was thereafter discharged from the Nursing Home of the first opposite party on 14.8.1991. Subsequently, she again came to the first opposite party on 26.8.1991 and though she was admitted as in -patient, she was discharged on 27.8.1991. The first opposite party had advised the patient to go to the Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore for further treatment of the Cancer ailment and had given a letter of introduction to the concerned Head of Department of that Institution. However, the patient did not follow the advice as given by Dr. Sundaram. Instead, she is said have consulted one Dr. Bosco of City Hospital, Trichy on 5.9.1991 whose diagnosis was that she had renal failure. Subsequently, Mrs. Rajalakshmi underwent surgical transplantation of her kidney on 29.9.1991 at the Kidney Medical Centre, Trichy. In connection with her treatment at that Centre, her bone marrow samples had been sent for being examined by Pathologists on three occasions in September, 1991 and all the reports were to the effect that the samples did not show any Hodgkin's deposit.

The complainants have put forward the case that the opposite party No.1 had wrongly diagnosed the ailment of Mrs. Rajalakshmi as Hodgkin's Lymphoma which was a type of cancer and had unnecessarily administered to her injections of Endoxan and it was because of the toxicity of that drug that her kidney cells got destroyed resulting in renal failure for which she had to undergo kidney transplantation, which led to her death.

(3.)THE complainants have also put forward the case that the second opposite party -Dr.S. Anuradha, Consulting Pathologist had acted with gross negligence in the matter of examining the bone marrow samples sent to her for pathological examination and had forwarded a report to Dr. Sundaram containing the wrong statement that the samples showed a deposit of Hodgkin's Lymphoma in many areas.