M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite parties 2, 4 and 3rd opposite party are the appellants in FA No.667/2007 and 738/2008, respectively.
(2.) Brief facts, leading to this appeal: Tmt. Abhirami, (hereinafter called patient) Daughter of the 1st complainant, wife of the 2nd complainant, mother of the 3rd complainant, when she was pregnant second time, had pre-natal checkup under one Dr.Leela Kurian. The said doctor, who checked the patient, cautioned that the 2nd delivery would be a caesarian one. The patient came to Theni, to the house of the 1st complainant, where she had taken treatment with the 1st opposite party hospital, where various tests were conducted. The 1st opposite party hospital, though equipped fully, the 2nd opposite party who attended the patient, requested her to go to M/s. Vaigai X-rays, M/s.Vikram Scan Diagnostic Centre, for necessary tests, even without answers for the queries, why she had recommended the said X-ray centre, despite 1st opposite party hospital is fully equipped.
(3.) On 15.5.2004, the patient feeling no movement of the baby, contacted the 2nd opposite party over phone, and she advised to come to the scan centre M/s.Vikram Scan Diagnostic, Theni, for scan, and after viewing the scan, of ultrasonic pictures, the 2nd opposite party informed that due to inadequate level of amniotic fluid, caesarian operation may be necessary, at the earliest point of time thereby the patient was advised to be admitted in the 5th opposite party hospital, despite treatment was taken in the 1st opposite party hospital, for delivery. Accordingly, the patient was admitted in the 5th opposite party hospital on 16.5.2004 at about 9.30 am, and she was informed not only the 2nd opposite party would attend upon the patient, but also the surgery would be performed by the 3rd opposite party.;