Annual Report 2012-2013 4.45 In view of the above, the Commission noticed that on 17 March 2011 the deceased was examined and his Hb measurement was 7 g. and after 18 days, i.e. on 4 April 2011 it was again 6 g. Later, on 23 August 2011 when the deceased was admitted in District Hospital Kanker in critical condition, at that time too his Hb measurement was less than 3 gm. The cause of death of the deceased mentioned by the Board of three doctors was "syncope due to sudden infraction of spleen enlarge". 4.46 The case was also examined by the Investigation Division of the Commission and it found that adequate treatment was not provided to the deceased and recommended that the opinion of the forensic expert on NHRC panel may be sought to verify the medical negligence in providing proper and timely treatment to the deceased. 4.47 The case file was accordingly sent to Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, Professor of Forensic Medicine, University Collge of Medical Sciences & Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi for his expert opinion. He opined that "After reviewing the postmortem report and treatment records, I am of the opinion that as the deceased was suffering from severe anaemia, for which he could have been treated at appropriate time." The Commission considered the report of the expert and inferred that the deceased was not provided proper medical treatment which violated his human rights. If proper and timely medical treatment was given to the deceased his life could have been saved. 4.48 The Commission thus issued a notice u/s 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act to the Chief Secretary, Chhattisgarh calling upon him to show cause why interim relief may not be recommended to be paid to the next of kin of the deceased. 4.49 The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Chhattisgarh sent a report dated 21 August 2012 that as per the postmortem report, the death of the deceased Chaitu Potai was natural and the Executive Magistrate did not suspect any foul play during enquiry. Further, there has not been any medical negligence in providing treatment to the deceased. 4.50 The Commission considered the reply and sent the case file again to Dr. N. K. Aggarwal, Professor of Forensic Medicine and expert on the panel of NHRC for his view. After review of the postmortem report and treatment record, he concluded that the deceased was suffering from severe anaemia for which he was not provided treatment at proper time. 4.51 Taking into consideration all the reports and records available, the Commission recommended an interim relief of ` 5,00,000 to the next of kin of the deceased and called upon the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh to send the proof of payment made to the next to the kin of the deceased. 4.52 The DIG, Chhattisgarh vide his report dated 26 December 2012 has confirmed payment of ` 5,00,000 to Sukhmi Bai Potai, wife of the deceased. 32 NHRC