MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.         This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 20.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) in complaint case No. 383 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.         Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the complainant was pregnant on 18.8.2006, as per the medical history, and since then she started consulting Dr.Kanwarjit Kochhar and was taking regular advice and getting her check-ups and tests.  The complainant also visited Dr.Mrs. Umesh N.Jindal at Jindal ivf & Sant Memorial Nursing Home for general check-up on 20.2.2007. The growth of child and the health of mother was excellent. There was no abnormality whatsoever, of any kind, prior to delivery. This was the first delivery of the complainant and there was no complication of any kind.  It was stated that on 11.5.2007, she visited the hospital of OP No.1 and was examined by OP No.2 doctor, who informed her that their hospital was well equipped with all facilities for safe delivery and proper care of her as also of the child at the time of delivery shall be taken. The complainant was quite healthy & fit before delivery. Her Hemoglobin on 17.5.2007 was 11.0 as per S.K.Lab test report.  OP No.2 assured the complainant that they manage the patient in emergency and her delivery would be normal.  It was further stated that she was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 on 18.5.2007.  At 9.10 PM on 18.5.2007 she gave birth to a female child through normal delivery.  She was under the influence of anesthesia. She did not feel comfortable at that night. After the effect of anesthesia withered away, she developed complications in womb and started running fever.  It was further stated that the doctors falsely claimed to have expelled placenta & membrane completely and the wrong & incorrect version and the findings of delivery were given, on her discharge card, in order to mislead her, and to hide the negligence committed during delivery. The actual facts were that she suffered another bout of blood on the floor of the labour room, in the hospital of OP No.1, on the next morning i.e. on 19.5.2007, when she got up for the toilet and the nursing sister/assistant present in the room got frightened and immediately summoned OP NO.2 doctor. The doctor was shocked to see her condition and again carried the complainant to the operation theatre, on the pretext of performing some minor procedure and curettage, which was done to remove the left over placenta.  It was further stated that the short coming/negligence was kept secret from the complainant and she was discharged, on the same evening, despite the knowledge of the doctor that the placenta had not been completely removed and her condition was not satisfactory and was likely to worsen further. This could be very well ascertained by a prudent doctor.  It was further stated that  OP No.2 and OP No. 1  hospital took it very lightly and played with the life of the complainant. They wasted very precious time on this pretext, in order to hide the negligence and inefficiency of OP No.2. The antibiotics and other medicines were regularly taken by the complainant, as prescribed by the doctors. During this period of over 72 hours, she suffered fever and had a profuse bleeding through uterus.  OP No.2 falsely consoled & misled her family members, that her fever would gradually get normal with the help of antibiotics.  OP No.2 left the complainant in the hands of junior and untrained staff, and went to her hostel. It was further stated that immediately after the delivery, Dr.Pushplata called Dr.Anupama Goel, a private Gynacoogist & Dr.Mukesh Gupta, Child Specialist, from outside to examine the complainant, and her baby and charged fee of Rs.500/- each from her, without issuing any receipt. Even they did not point out or disclose to the complainant that some placenta had been left inside.  It was further stated that when the fever of the complainant did not come down and bleeding PV did not stop, she again rushed to the hospital of OP No.1, on 22.5.2007. The doctor prescribed certain ayurvedic and some allopathic medicines like tablets crocin,  taxim etc.  However, on her visit on 25.5.2007, Dr.Pushplata advised her for Ultrasound, since she was running fever continuously and had been bleeding for the past 6 days, to verify whether, there was any retained product and membrane and also referred her to another doctor, namely, Dr.Madhu Gupta of the same hospital, who  prescribed some medicines and did not disclose the problem. As directed by the doctors, a USG Pelvis (TAS) was conducted on 25.5.2007, from Panchvati Diagnositic Centre located in the premises of the OPs, which gave their report, dated 27.5.2007, but she was still not well. She again visited OP No.1 hospital on 29.5.2007 alongwith ultrasound report and consulted Dr.Madhu Gupta. She, even at that time, did not disclose the main cause of fever and passing of blood profusely.  It was further stated that the little baby also started having problem, as she was on mother’s feed.  It was further stated that the doctors of the OP hospital did not take adequate precautions, which a prudent doctor or a qualified surgeon should have taken in such situations.  However, finding no improvement, in her condition, she consulted a senior private Gynaecologist Dr.(Mrs.) G.K.Bedi on 2.6.2007, who conducted thorough check-up and verified the records & treatment given by the OPs.  He diagnosed that the entire symptoms and problems were because of retained Placenta.  In order to rule out the doubt, she conducted another ultrasound of her and gave a finding that “fever after delivery and bleeding + c clots + urine pus cells since past 15 days, are because of retained parts of membrane of placenta.”  Dr.Bedi advised her to be admitted, in her nursing home, for another surgical operation, on which, expenses to the tune Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- were to be incurred. Since she had already spent huge amount on her medical treatment, and, as such, she was not in a position to spend anymore and paid fee of Rs.700/- to Dr.Bedi.  The complainant again contacted Dr.Pushplata, OP No.2, who called her to Chaitanya Hospital, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh on 4.6.2007 in the night, where she was examined by Dr.Anupama Goel & Dr.Poonam Kumar. They conducted another USG test of the complainant and charged Rs.650/-. The doctors advised the family members of the complainant to arrange for one unit of blood, and money and get two more tests conducted, from outside. They advised the complainant to come in the morning at 9 AM on 5.6.2007 for operation in  Chaitanya Hospital. On that date, they performed the operation, on the person of complainant, under general anesthesia and took out the huge quantity of retained placenta and performed the suction evacuation and curettage till end point.  The poisonous material, so taken out, was also shown to the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the complainant. Its sample was sent to Medicos Centre for examination.  It was further stated that she was discharged from Chaitanya Hospital, after she paid an amount of Rs.7500/-.  It was further stated that the aforesaid facts proved that the OPs were deficient, careless & negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. It was further stated that there were no facilities in the hospital of OP, for meeting out emergencies, necessitating uterine artery embalization, to check bleeding, as was required in her case.  Further, in the case of any complication, she should have been immediately shifted/referred to PGI, Chandigarh or Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, so that proper treatment could be given to her, well in time, and she could be saved of the complications, sufferings and harassment, but it was not done by the OPs only in order to hide their inefficiency & negligence. They allowed her to suffer for about 20 days and finally, when they failed, they referred the complainant to Dr.Saha of Sector 32 Hospital, Chandigarh at 3.30 P.M., when her condition was highly precarious, who admitted her on 7.6.2007 at 16.03 P.M. in Emergency Care Clinic, under his care and started treatment at odd hours, when the patient’s condition had already deteriorated much and saved her life. It was further stated that due to lack of knowledge on the part of OPs No. 2, non-existence of proper facilities in OP No.1 hospital and belated decision to refer the patient to PGI or Govt. Medical College itself amounted to negligence.  It was further stated that the record of her treatment had been later on fabricated by the Ops to escape Court hassles and consequent liabilities thereof.  It was further stated that her child, who was quite healthy, at the time of delivery, suffered later on, because of excessive use of antibiotic medicines taxim, matergin etc. which the complainant had to take for long, while under treatment of the OPs.  It was further stated that the abovesaid acts of the OPs, amounted to deficiency, in service. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by OPs, wherein, they admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It was stated that they had treated the complainant with utmost care and diligence.  It was further stated that the record annexed with the complaint, clearly revealed that the complainant was of dubious, wavering, hesitating and deceiving nature. She did not stick to one doctor and continued to move from one doctor to another. It was further stated that she did not have any trauma, pain, suffering & harassment because of inadequate medical facilities and negligence of the OPs. It was further stated that she underwent treatment in Deep Clinic and Sant Memorial Nursing Home, before delivery. Thereafter, she contacted the Ops on 11.5.2007 for delivery. It was further stated that the record further reveals that the complainant had got HB test on 17.5.2007 from S.K.Lab but she had not annex any prescription of the doctor on whose recommendation the test was got conducted, which showed that she was under consultation of some other doctor on 17.5.2007 on whose prescription this test was got conducted.  It was further stated that on 25.5.2007, OP No.2, advised test of USG of pelvis, which was got done, on that very day, but with malafide intention, she did not show the report to the OPs and, thereafter, she went to Dr.Bedi on 2.6.2007 for consultation and told her that  D & C suction done on 25^th May and again told her that D & C done twice. This shows that she was under consultation of some other doctor after discharge from the hospital of the OP.  It was further stated that the complainant did not produce any record till today which reveals that from which hospital and when her D & C suction was done twice.  It was denied that the OPs ever advised the complainant to visit Chaitanya Hospital. It was further stated that she herself got treatment of suction evacuation, from Chaitanya Hospital on 4.6.2007 and left the hospital on 5.6.2007 against medical advice.  She again came to the answering OPs, with the complaint of fever.  It was further stated that she did not reveal that suction evacuation treatment, had been taken at Chaitanya Hospital to the answering OPs on 5.6.2007. It was further stated that if she had disclosed this fact, she would not have been admitted in OP Hospital on 5.6.2007.  It was further stated that even at Government Medical Hospital, Sector 32, the complainant gave a wrong statement that  she got antenatal treatment and was under supervision of Dhanwantry Hospital, whereas, she was under treatment of Deep Clinic & Sant Memorial Nursing Home before coming to the OPs. They further stated that, if she was not satisfied with the services of the Ops, then why she again came to them, even after getting treatment from Sector 32 Hospital and visited OP Hospital on 13.8.2007 for check up.  It was further stated that she gave birth to a baby on 18.5.2007 at OP Hospital, through normal delivery, and OP No.2, observed discharge of complete placenta at the time of delivery of baby. It was further stated that in normal delivery, there always remains some possibility that succenturiate lobe of placenta is left inside the uterus, which cannot be diagnosed, in routine practice. The same could not be known in case of normal delivery. It was further stated that they had no reason to falsely claim complete expulsion of placenta, as no complications in the delivery had occurred. Till her discharge  on 19.5.2007, and during her stay, with the OPs, the complainant’s husband and father-in-law did not agitate the same, at that time.  It was denied that on 19.5.2007, she suffered another bout of blood.  It was clarified that placenta normally develops as one piece and gets out of its own, at the time of delivery, being one of natural process developed by God, but sometimes one piece of placenta known as Succenturiate lobes gets separated from main placenta and develops separately. It was further stated that  the doctor, at the time of delivery could  neither know nor could tell whether any part of placenta had been left inside, in case of succenturiate lobe.  It was further stated that after delivery, the condition of the complainant was normal and stable. It was admitted that that Dr.Anupama Goel and Dr.Mukesh Gupta came and checked her and found everything normal.   It was further stated that when she visited the OPs on 5.6.2007, she was suffering from fever and excessive bleeding. Therefore, she was admitted, in the hospital of the OPs and given proper treatment. The condition of the complainant was stable on 6.6.2007 but she was requiring blood transfusion and, thereafter, her relatives requested the OPs to refer her to Government Medical Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh for blood transfusion and further treatment.  Therefore, on the request of her relative, she was referred to the said hospital on 7.6.2007.   All other allegations, levelled by the complainant, in the complaint, were denied. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs.

4.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.       The learned District Forum, dismissed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the order.  

6.            Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant, filed the instant appeal. 

7.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and, have perused the record, carefully.

8.         The learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant has filed an application for placing on record additional evidence, in which, it was pleaded that, as this is a case of medical negligence, and for proper adjudication of the case, the expert medical opinion is essential. It was prayed that the same may kindly be allowed.

9.         Reply to the application for placing on record additional evidence, was filed by the respondent/OP, in which, it was submitted that there is nothing on record how these two doctors are expert to give the opinion, in the present case, and the better trained doctors than the PGI Doctors, whereas the opinion of the Assistant Professor of PGI had already been sought by the learned District Forum, at the time of adjudication of the complaint. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application for placing on record additional evidence filed by the appellant/complainant. 

10.       In our view, there is no need to give permission for filing expert medical opinion of the two doctors as mentioned in the application because the opinion of an expert i.e. Dr.Meenakshi Rohilla, Assistant Prof. Department of Obst. & Gynecology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, is already on record, which is sufficient for the just decision of the case. Hence, the prayer made for filing additional evidence on record, by the complainant, is declined. Hence, the application is dismissed. 

11.       The learned Counsel for the respondents filed two applications dated 21.5.2011, one seeking permission to cross examine Dr.Vijay Kumar Kadam and Dr.Richa Gangal and the other for dismissal of appeal, being false and frivolous alongwith heavy costs.  It was stated that the aforesaid doctors, without meeting Rashi Gupta, and without meeting the treating doctor, had given the opinion against the Ops, without any basis. It was further stated that the cross- examination of the aforesaid doctors, was necessary, in view of the expert opinion of Dr.Meenakshi Rohilla already on record.

12.       One reply dated 24.5.2011 to both the aforesaid applications, was filed by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, in which, it was stated that the OPs had no case and were trying to prolong the proceedings, by asking for permission to cross examine the experts. It was further stated that National Commission had already stopped the practice of allowing the parties, to summon the experts, for cross examination and had instead, adopted the practice of permitting the parties to issue interrogatories in relation to the points, intended to be asked. in the cross examination. It was further stated that the application for summoning the experts has no merit or relevance and ought to be disallowed.

13.       In our view, the application deserved to be dismissed since the application filed by the applicant, to produce the additional evidence of Dr.Vijay Kumar Kadam and Dr.Richa Gangal, by way of affidavits has been dismissed, the question of their cross-examination does not at all arise. The application, thus, moved by the Counsel for the respondents, for cross-examination of the aforesaid doctor, having been rendered as infructuous, is liable to be dismissed. The second application filed by the respondent, also does not merit consideration, at this stage, especially when the appeal is being decided, on merits. As such, both the applications, filed by the respondent, are dismissed.

14.       The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint on flimsy grounds, by holding that the hospital/OP No.1 and the doctor/OP No.2 were not negligent and deficient in rendering medical service. He further submitted that it was proved beyond doubt that the doctor/OP No.2, did not handle the delivery carefully, and due to the negligence of the doctor, the placenta, which was to be extracted completely remained inside the womb. He further submitted that due to this reason, the complainant was suffering from high fever and bleeding profusely. It was further contended that even after seeing the report dated 22.5.2007 of ultrasound, as advised by the doctor/OP No.2, wherein, it was specifically mentioned that the placenta remained inside the womb, neither the OPs, made any efforts, for the removal of the same, nor they referred her, to some other competent Gynecologist. It was further contended that when the complainant was left unattended, she was left with no other alternative, except to go to another doctor. Therefore, she went to a senior Gynecologist Dr.Mrs.G.K.Bedi, who after conducting the ultrasound, advised her for the removal of the retained placenta and also disclosed the charges for conducting surgery. But due to the financial constraints, the complainant was not in a position to bear the expenses for surgery and instead opted to go in for surgery, in the hospital of the OPs.  It was further contended that she was admitted again in the OPs hospital for removal of the retained placenta. When OP No.2, was unable to handle the case of the complainant she was ultimately referred to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where a surgery was done by the competent doctors and they removed the placenta.  It was further contended that the complainant was bleeding continuously for 17 days and her hemoglobin had come down to 5.6 gm, due to the carelessness and negligence of the doctors of OP No.1. It was further contended that OP No.1 obtained a false and fabricated hemoglobin report, from its own laboratory on 7.6.2007, which falsely showed the hemoglobin as 7.4 gm, whereas it was actually 5.6 gm or 5.7 gm. It was further  stated that there was negligence and deficiency, in service, on the part of the Ops, in delaying the reference of the complainant to PGI or GMCH – 32, as they from the very beginning were not competent and able to treat the complainant.  It was further contended that this Commission has already granted relief to the complainant, in a similar case of negligence and deficiency in the case titled as “Manmeet Singh Mattewal Vs. Deep Nursing Home, Chandigarh” decided in 2007. It was further contended that the learned District Forum had not taken into consideration Annexures C-5 and C-7 annexed with the complaint. It was further stated that all the medical literature placed on record by the appellant as well as by the OPs, clearly pointed out the bleeding after delivery was the sign of retained product for which the attending doctor was responsible. It was further stated that it was clear from the facts that the 3^rd stage of delivery was not managed properly, as a result whereof the complainant was bleeding profusely and also suffered pain and sufferings because of negligence of the doctor.  It was further contended that from the reports, it was confirmed that there was no such succenturiated lobe, and it was only a retained placenta which caused sever damage, to the health of the complainant and the doctor and the hospital made wrong and incorrect declaration, in their affidavits, to mislead the Forum. It was further contended that it was proved beyond doubt that the complainant suffered on account of negligence of the OPs for more than 21 days and had been rotting in different hospitals and nursing homes by spending money for her treatment and facing harassment and suffering mental agony and pain on account of negligence of the doctor and the hospital. Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant on the following cases Poonam Verma Vs. Ashwin Patel & Ors. II(1996) CPJ 1 (SC),  Khanna Nursing Home Vs. Radha Krishna 2010 JMC 94,  Sailash Mumjal Vs. All India Institute of Medical Services, O.P.No.224 of 1994, decided on 20.5.2004 by NCDRC, Kasturi Medical Research Centre Pvt. Limited Vs. Ajayendu Nag 2010 (1) CPC 524,  Dr. Kaligounden Vs. N.Thangamuthu 2002(2) CPC 141,   V.Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another 2010 (2) CPC 647.

15.       The learned Counsel for the Ops, contended that they had treated the complainant, with utmost care and diligence. She did not stick to one doctor and continued to move from one doctor to another doctor. It was further contended that the complainant underwent treatment in Deep Clinic and Sant Memorial Nursing Home before delivery and, thereafter, she contacted the OPs on 11.5.2007 for delivery. It was further contended that the record reveals that she had got HB test on 17.5.2007 from S.K.Lab but she had not annexed any prescription of doctor on whose recommendation the test was got conducted, which shows that she was under consultation of some other doctor. It was further contended that on 25.5.2007, OP No.2, advised some tests but she did not show reports to the OPs and, thereafter, went to Dr.Bedi on 2.6.2007 for consultation and told her that  D & C suction had been done on 25^th May. She again told Dr.Bedi that D & C was done twice, which showed that she was under consultation of some other doctor after discharge from the hospital of OP No.1.  It was further contended that the OPs never advised the complainant to visit Chaitanya Hospital and she herself got treatment in that Hospital on 4.6.2007 and, thereafter, she came to the OPs with the complaint of fever but she did not reveal of taking suction evacuation treatment at Chaitanya Hospital to the OPs on 5.6.2007. Had she disclosed this fact, she would not have been admitted in OP Hospital on 5.6.2007.  It was further contended that, if the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the OPs then why she again came to them, even after getting treatment from Sector 32 Hospital and visited OP Hospital on 13.8.2007 for check up.  She gave birth to a baby on 18.5.2007 at OP Hospital through normal delivery. It was further contended that they had no reason to falsely claim complete expulsion of placenta, as no complications, in delivery had occurred. Till her discharge on 19.5.2007, and during her stay, with the OPs, the complainant’s husband and father-in-law did not agitate the matter.  It was further contended that after delivery, the condition of the complainant was normal and stable. Dr.Anupama Goel and Dr.Mukesh Gupta came and checked her and found everything normal.  On the request of her family members, she was referred to the Government Medical Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh on 7.6.2007.   It was further contended that the condition of the complainant was stable on 6.6.2007, but she was requiring blood transfusion and, thereafter, her relatives requested the OPs to refer her to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh for blood transfusion and further treatment.

16.       There is, no dispute, that the complainant gave birth to a female child on 18.5.2007, in Dabar Dhanwantry Hospital (OP No.1) through normal delivery. She was discharged on 19.5.2007. But on medical/prescription card (Annexure C-5) issued by the OPs, it had been written by the doctor/OP No.2 that “ Placenta and Membrane expelled completely”, whereas in the ultrasound report dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure C-8) it had been written that

“UTERUS : It is enlarged in size, normal in outline. Myometrial echopattern is normal. Endometrium is markedly thickened and echogenic measuring 64 mm with multiple hypoechoic areas within s/o retained products.”

This fact was also confirmed as per the diagnosis of Dr.Mrs.G.K.Bedi, on the basis of ultrasound report. So, it was proved that the placenta was not completely removed by the doctor /OP No.2. Further on 29.5.2007 when the complainant went to OP No.1 hospital and had shown the ultrasound report to the concerned doctor, she did not bother to disclose this fact, to the complainant that some of the placenta remained inside the womb, and it could only be removed by operation. She left the complainant unattended, whereas, as per medical ethics, when it was well within the knowledge of the OPs, that the complainant was suffering from high fever and bleeding profusely then the OPs were duty bound to get extracted the retained placenta immediately through a competent Gynecologist of their own hospital or they should have referred her to another qualified Gynecologist, for such operation. From these facts, we are of the view that the complainant was not managed properly by the OPs. The OPs, thus,  negligent in performing their duties.  Even the literature regarding the retained placenta at page No.228, reads as under ;

“If you have prolonged heavy bleeding in the days or weeks following the birth, you may be referred for an ultrasound scan to see if there are any retained products of conception in your uterus. If so you will be admitted to hospital for removal under anesthetic – a procedure known as evacuation of retained products of conception (ERPC), and treated with antibiotics. “

 The expert opinion tendered by Dr.Meenakshi Rohilla, Assistant Prof. Department of Obst. & Gynecology, PGIMER, Chandigarh, by way of affidavit, dated 29.9.2008, is as under:-

“Sometimes, in certain circumstances like placenta accrete/increta/percreta it may not be possible to do complete removal and it is not advisable to do complete removal of placenta if the patient is not bleeding in these cases. Even whole of the placenta can be left inside in cases of adherent placenta. (William’s Obstetrics, 22^nd Edition, page 833).”

                        “Retained   placental   bits   can    lead    to    infection”  

                        “Non removal placenta can cause haemorrhage in the                                              mother”.

In the present case, the complainant was suffering from profuse bleeding and running high fever. Therefore, the removal of placenta, in this case, was of utmost necessity. OP No.2 doctor, however, did not do so. OP No.2 doctor who conducted the delivery, was, thus, highly irresponsible, due to whose negligence the placenta remained inside the womb and the complainant was left in the lurch by the OPs. The medical negligence of the Ops was, thus, proved. The Ops were deficient in rendering service. 

17.       The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that being GAMS Doctor, OP No.2 was not competent to treat the complainant, is without any merit. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as Dr.Mukhtiar Chand and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases 579.  The facts of the aforesaid case are distinguishable from the facts of this case, in as much as, the dates, of notifications issued by various State Governments, which were the subject matter of the aforesaid case, were prior to the notification dated 30.10.1996, issued by the Central Council   of   Indian Medicine, which is as under :-

 “Institutionally qualified practitioners of Indian Systems of Medicine (Ayurved, Siddha and Unani) are eligible to practice Indian Systems of Medicine and Modern Medicine including Surgery, Gynaecology and Obstetrics based on their training and teaching which are included in the syllabi of via courses of ISM prescribed by Central Council of Indian Medicine after approval of the Government of India.”  

From Annexures R-A2 to R-A15, as also the notification and other relevant material placed on record, it has been established that GAMS Doctor like the doctor OP No.2, could prescribe the allopathic medicines and was also competent to conduct a normal delivery. Therefore, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the appellant from the aforesaid case. 

18.       From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion, that OP No.2 was negligent in performing her duties. The Ops are liable to pay compensation, to the complainant, for not treating her with due diligence, for expenses incurred by her, on her treatment, and also for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by her, at their hands. Therefore, we don’t agree with the view taken by the leaned District Forum that OP No.2 did not commit medical negligence, in treating the complainant.

19.       From the above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, and the learned District Forum erred by dismissing the complaint. The impugned order is liable to be set aside.

20.       In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned District Forum. We further direct the OPs jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in lumpsum, as compensation, to the complainant, alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. This order be complied with by the Ops, within a period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which they shall pay the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of delivery, till realization, besides costs.

21.            Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.