DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the impugned Order dated 27.11.2018, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1631/2016, whereby the Order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that Baby Abhilasha about 3 years of age was examined by Dr. V.K. Gupta at BDK Hospital, Jhunjhunu for abdominal pain and vomiting. On 08.05.2015, the Ultra-sonography (USG) was performed by OP-2-Dr. Shekhawat in Indu CT Scan Diagnostic Centre (OP-1) and reported it as 12.8 mm appendicular lump. Dr. V.K. Gupta immediately asked Abhilasha’s father to take opinion from Jaipur. Therefore, on 09.05.2015 he took his daughter by taxi to the paediatric surgeon Dr. Chetan Sharma at SMS Medical College, Jaipur. Again USG was performed which didn’t find appendicular lump and the pain was due to infection in the uterus, it was cured within 7 days of normal treatment. 3. Because of the wrong diagnosis, it was alleged gross negligence the Complainant’s father has to travel Jaipur and sustained financial loss alongwith physical and mental agony. Being aggrieved, Baby Abhilasha filed a Consumer Complaint through her father as a guardian, before the District Forum, Jhunjhunu and prayed Rs.1,00,000/- as a compensation. 4. The OPs denied any negligence in the diagnosis. 5. The District Forum, on hearing the parties, dismissed the Complaint. 6. The Complainant filed a First Appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan. The Appeal was allowed and the OP Nos.1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum the date of filing the complaint and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation of mental pain and pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. 7. Being aggrieved, both the OPs have filed instant Revision Petition. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the medical record inter-alia two ultra-sound reports dated 08.05.2014 and 09.05.2014. The controversy in the instant case that in both the USG reports, the diagnosis was different. 9. We have carefully perused both USG reports and the medical record. The first USG was done by Dr. Ravindra Shekhawat at Indu CT Scan dated 08.05.2014 revealed ‘acute appendicitis with perpendicular oedema’. It showed 12.8 mm fluid filled blind tubular loop in right iliac fossa and tenderness. 10. The second USG report dated 09.05.2015 was done on the advice of the Paediatric Surgeon Dr. Chetan Sharma. It was performed by Dr. R.P. Bansal at Medical Imaging Centre and reported it as, ‘Uterus is enlarged measures 3.3 cm (width) x 1.2 cm (length) x 1.8 cm (depth). A collection with internal echoes and ? air is seen in uterine cavity, measuring 1.9 cm x 1.8 cm. Fundal wall of uterus is not defined and another smaller 1.2 cm x 0.6 cm size collection is seen around uterus. Right iliac fossa shows clumping of bowel loops with wall thickening.’ The impression was ‘Uterine collection with ? perforation and right iliac fossa bowel mass’. Further CECT of abdomen was advised. 11. In our considered view, from both USG reports, admittedly, there was right iliac fossa pathology. There was no gross discrepancy in both the reports, but only interpretation differs. We are rather surprised to note observation of Dr. R. P. Bansal about the uterine perforation, which was logically impossible in the child of three years. The Complainant’s allegation about unnecessary travel and expenditure is not sustainable. The treating doctor for confirmation sent the patient to Jaipur to rule out other pathology which can’t be considered as a medical negligence. 12. The Order of the State Commission is set aside, which is wrongly held the Petitioners liable for deficiency in service. 13. Based on foregoing discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed, consequently, the Complaint filed before the District Forum is dismissed. | 
