By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint in short is as follows: -

            The complainant undergone a surgery to remove cyst from pancreas before five years of present complaint.  The complainant was suffering from growth in pancreas and she was under treatment at Almas Hospital, Kottakkal.  The Dr. Mr. Saifudheen from Almas Hospital referred the complainant to Dr. Prathapan who was working at Chest hospital, Calicut. Dr. Prathapan surgically removed cyst from the pancreas of complainant. She was continuing regular checkup before Dr. Prathapan.  On 10/04/2014 due to discontinuation of menstruation course, she was consulted Dr.Prathapan and he   diagnosed pregnancy of the complainant. Dr. Prathapan said there is high risk in the pregnancy of the complainant in the light of removal of cyst from pancreas through open surgery and to avoid complication the advice was to terminate pregnancy. In the light of advice from Dr. Prathapan, the complainant along with husband approached 1^st opposite party on 6/6/2014 who is working under second opposite party.  Complainant produced referral letter issued by Dr. Prathapan.  The first opposite party conducted scanning and also other necessary investigations required prior to medical termination of pregnancy and sterilization. The complainant was advised to report on 10/06/2014 for the surgical procedure and accordingly complainant got admitted for medical termination of pregnancy and mini lap sterilization.   On 11/06/2014 by evening the complainant was informed by the opposite party that the surgical procedure was success and remitted an amount of Rs. 24,660/- towards hospital expenses by the husband of complainant. 

2.         The complainant were informed by the first opposite party that the surgery was a success and seven week three days old foetus has been removed and delivery has been stopped and there is nothing to fear and also decision taken by the complainant was right one and if the pregnancy were permitted to continue the life itself of the complainant was in danger and thus the opposite party consoled the complainant and her husband.    The complainant had high bleeding after sterilization and MTP but it was subsequently stopped.

3.    The complainant had approached opposite party to remove the stitch and thereafter due to fever and lower abdominal pain. The complainant along with husband met first opposite party on 16/6/2014 and reported the same.  But the opposite party said that, all are part of the surgery and it is only a feeling that she need not fear of it and she is able to play even football.  The 1^stopposite party prescribed certain medicines also.  But the pain continued and due to that the complainant again approached the opposite party on 28/06/2014 and that occasion also the opposite party said that it is only assumption, need not take serious and also prescribed certain medicines. Thereafter though there was no relief to pain, she did not reveal the fact to her husband for several days.  At last, on 28/08/2014 complainant and her husband again approached Dr. Prathapan at Calicut and the Doctor examined the complainant and expressed presence of pregnancy and directed to undergo further examination. Thereafter 29/08/2014 itself the complainant undergone scanning at Almas hospital, Kottakal and it was found growing  foetus and it was assessed aged 19 weeks and 4 days.  The complainant undergone various medical examination and thereby found that there is no harm is caused to fetus due to medical termination of pregnancy and sterilization process held at opposite party hospital.   Thereafter complainant and her husband met with the CEO and HRD of the second opposite party and they said that they cannot do anything and second opposite party directed to meet first opposite party and to solve the issue. Aggrieved by the act of opposite parties, complainant and family suffering from mental agony and she is suffering acute pain to abdomen, complainant alleges she is in crisis due to believing the version of opposite parties that they surgically removed seven weeks and three days old foetus, she is afraid of which part of the body had been removed by the opposite parties. The complainant carrying 8 months and afraid of future days on account of consequence of the incidents. 

4.        The complainant alleges carelessness, deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant was caused to approach opposite party due to threat of life and thereby to perform MTP and sterilization.  The opposite parties handled the issue in a careless and negligent manner.   The second opposite party providing opportunity to the first opposite party for doing this sort of service and thereby realizing money from the patient consumers. The complainant is not aware of the fact that which part of the body has been cut and removed by the first opposite party. Complainant is anxious on consequences of surgical removal done by the opposite parties. Though the money cannot replace the hardship and inconveniences caused to the complainant on account of the unfair, negligent, deficient service of the opposite parties, she claims Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation. Complainant pray for the refund of Rs. 35,000/-paid to the opposite parties towards expenses and also Rs. 50,000/- towards the present treatment due to the act of opposite parties. Complainant also estimate Rs. 3,50,000/-towards future treatment expenses along with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

5.    On admission of the complaint  notice was issued to the opposite parties and both of them appeared and filed detailed version.

6.        The first opposite party filed version denying the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint. The complaint is unsustainable, opposed to law and cannot be allowed at any rate. There was no negligence, deficiency on the side of opposite parties. The first opposite party submitted her version of incidents took place in the matter. 

7.   The first opposite party admitted that the complainant and her husband   approached 2^ndopposite party hospital on 10/06/2014 wherein the first opposite party working. At that time complainant and her husband brought a reference letter of Dr. Prathapan.  In that reference letter there was an advice that the complainant is carrying seven weeks and three days and which is to be terminated. Then the opposite party examined the complainant and accordingly as per the recording system maintained in the hospital prepared a clinical care plan.  The opposite party prepared a scanning report to make sure the age of the fetus stated by the complainant and which is mentioned in the produced scan report.  The examination by the first opposite party convinced that the approximate gestational age as seven weeks three days.  Then on the basis of the scan report and on request of the complainant and also as per the direction of treating Doctor of the complainant MTP with sterilization procedure was explained properly to the complainant and the complainant issued signed consent letter and thereafter admitted the complainant for procedure. On 10/06/2014 itself the complainant was taken to surgical theatre and provided pre-operative anesthesia and also conducted incidental examinations. After ensuring the body of the complainant as fit for MTP with sterilization on both sides by modified Pomeroy’s technic the procedure completed.  Thereafter Dilation and Evacuation were done and also gentle curettage done. Then surgically removed part was put in water  and found that as floating in the water and made it sure, the removed are embryonic tissue.  The fetus did not showed symptom of Trophoblastic.  Hence the specimen was did not sent for histopathology examination, thereafter the complainant was examined, it was found that uterus contracted, bleeding turned to normal and so post operative medicines provided and shifted to the room.   The opposite parties recorded one day admission since she was undergone procedure on spinal anesthesia. The opposite party examined the complainant on 11/06/2014 at about 10 AM and medicines also given.   At that time nothing was noted as abnormal and so at about 11 AM, it was again examined whether she is suffering from fever or anything like and also provided medicines and removed bladder catheter. The opposite party advised discharge in case of absence of  any issues with prescription of medicines and also necessary inspections. The complainant discharged from the hospital on 11/06/2014 at about 2 PM in a very normal condition. The opposite party instructed the complainant to report for the removal of stitches and accordingly complainant reported in the OP and it was removed also from the hospital.  The opposite party submit that at the time of removal of stitches also the complainant did not report any sort of difficulties. Thereafter few days the complainant approached the opposite party hospital at OP for treatment. At that time provided medicines as well as instructions. The opposite party submits that the complainant thereafter never turned to the opposite parties.  The opposite party submit that all the averments and the incidents regarding treatments and difficulties which faced by the complainant, the opposite party unaware. The submission of the opposite party is that from the averments in the complaint itself there is no facts reveals negligence or deficiency from the side of opposite parties. So, the contention is that there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties specifically denied each and all averments and allegations contained in the complaint. 

8.     The second opposite party also filed a detailed version denying the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint.  The contention of the second opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on true correct facts. The opposite parties and the doctors and staff attached to the hospital had treated the patient as per the universally accepted standard medical protocol bestowing all care, caution and attention.  It is submitted that there has been no negligence, indifference, carelessness or deficiency in service in the matter. It is also submitted that what is seen alleged are willful acts, which it is submitted will not come under the purview of  the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party alleges that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands but has suppressed true, correct, material facts and has set out incorrect, unsustainable and misleading allegations and claims which as well disentitles complainant from claiming or getting any relief under the Act from this  Commission. The attempt of the complainant appears to make unjust enrichment at the expense of the opposite parties, that too misusing an unfortunate medical condition which the patient happened to suffer for no fault of the opposite parties.

9.       The opposite party also submitted that the complainant willfully suppressed the relevant and material documents and facts obviously with malafide avaricious and other ulterior motives.   The complainant ought to have revealed all the facts and produced all the documents facilitating a proper and effective adjudication of the matter.  The opposite party submit that complainant has not furnished the copies of the treatment records and case sheet regarding the treatment claimed to have been availed by the complainant, thus, effectively preventing and incapacitating the opposite party from filing proper and detailed version. The second opposite party submit that first opposite party is well qualified and experienced gynaecologist   and second opposite party is well equipped super Specialty Hospital with state-of-the-Art machinery and equipment and having highly qualified and experienced Doctors, Nurses, Paramedics and technicians. 

10.        The second opposite party admitted that the complainant presented in the OP of the department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics of the second opposite party hospital on 06/06/2014 as a case referred by Dr. Prathapan of Chest Hospital, Kozhikode for MTP as a high-risk patient forth Gravida, 7 weeks 3 days pregnancy, with history of distal Pancreatectomy for cystic lesion in the tail of pancreas.   The complainant was attended by first opposite party, USG taken revealed single live intrauterine pregnancy, 7week 3 days. Then after clinical evaluation considering the referral letter by Dr. Prathapan and in the light of complainant’s history, she was advised admission for MTP and the complainant and her husband being desired to have sterilization as well, after due counseling the same was also tentatively decided to be done along with MTP.The opposite party contented that the complainant came to OP on 10/06/2014 and she was admitted.   The complainant was explained all the details about the procedure and risk factors, free informed consent was obtained for the MTP and sterilization surgery.  Then she was shifted to operation theater and medical termination of pregnancy was done by dilatation, evacuation and sterilization was done by modified Pomeroy’s technique.  The surgery was uneventful and after keeping the complainant under observation she was shifted to the ward around 4.15 PM and she was discharged on 11/06/2014 at 5.30 PM with advice to review after seven days or at any time if there was pain, fever or bleeding. Thereafter the complainant reported on 16/06/2014 and on that day suture was removed and prescribed necessary medication.   At that time complainant was advised to report for review and checkup if there was any pain, fever or bleeding.  She was also reminded the fact that in case of any  delayed or missed periods, to report immediately back to the hospital.   The complainant reported on 28/06/2014 with complaints of abdominal pain and after due examination the first opposite party prescribed necessary medications.  Though the complainant was specifically required to come for review and checkup including for ultrasound evaluation in case of any delayed or missed periods or another complication, she never turned up thereafter and was lost for further checkup, treatment or management.  The submission of the opposite party is that continuing pregnancy after D &E is a well documented and accepted medical situation. This is always a possibility of continuing pregnancy, which can occur in spite of the best care, caution and attention on the part of the surgeon.  Continuing pregnancy after MTP is not an indication of any negligence, carelessness, or deficiency in service.  The submission of the opposite party is that the baby been unwanted and risky as attempted to be made out in the complaint, the complainant could have very well opted for MTP immediately upon noticing delayed or missed periods.  So, the opposite party submits that the complainant allowed the pregnancy to progress itself so would   belie and discredit her case and claim. 

11.       The second opposite party specifically denied that each and every contention of the complainant made in the complaint is disputing the entire claim enlisted in the complaint and submitted that the complaint is ill motivated and filed for undue financial gain and to cause harassment and hardship to the opposite parties and according to opposite parties, a fit case for invoking the provision contained in Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.  So, the prayer is to dismiss the complaint awarding compensatory costs to this opposite party.

12.         The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Documents

on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A23. Document on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext. B1. The complainant and her husband examined as PW1 &PW2 respectively.  The first opposite party is examined as DW1 and Dr. Rasheeda Beegum was examined as DW2.  Heard both sides, perused affidavit and documents and also notes of arguments submitted by parties.  

13.    The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.

14.       Point No.1

           The complainant herein approached first opposite party on 06/06/2014 with reference letter issued by Dr. Prathapan V.K. dated 4/6/2014. The letter states as follows: -“History of distal pancreatotomy for cystic lesion treatment of pancreas. Now patient is pregnant, LMP April 10^th, risk of foetal anomaly due to advanced maternal age, patient may be considered for an MTP in view of high-risk pregnancy”.  Perusing the referral letter the first opposite party prescribed various tests including USG. On 9/6/2014 complainant again approached 1^st opposite party and she was advised to report in LR on the next day by 8.AM in fasting.   On 10/6/2014 morning complainant   appeared before the first opposite party and she got admitted in the hospital. It can be seen from Ext.A5 discharge summary that she was admitted in the hospital for MTP WITH MINI LAP. The discharge summary reveals that patient is 42-year-old female, G4P3L3 patient admitted for termination of pregnancy- medical case with minilap. LCB: 17 years.  Gestational age: 7 weeks 3 days.  It also reveals   MTP + MINI LAP STERILIZATION UNDER SAB DONE on 10/06/2014 and post operative period was uneventful.  Patient was stable and discharged with advice set of medicine.  She was also advised review after 7days in OP department for suture removal and also report immediately if pain/fever/bleeding PV. Thereafter on 16/06/2014 complainant approached first opposite party with complaint of lower abdominal pain. On that day the opposite party prescribed certain medicines.  Due to continuing pain to lower abdomen complainant again approached first opposite party on 28/06/2014 with pain lasting three days. Then also opposite party prescribed certain medicines. Thereafter two months on 28/08/2014 the complainant approached Dr. Prathapan and he advised USG abdomen.  On the next day 29/08/2014 she approached Almas Hospital for USG and she undergone scanning therein.  The scan report was that single live intra uterine gestation of 19 weeks 4 days +/-1W.  Estimated fetal weight was 307gms.  There after the complainant approached Dr. Sudha at MB Hospital Malappuram. Dr. Sudha referred the complainant to Dr. Seneesh for amniocentesis, he reported that amniocentesis was carried out and karyotype of the fetus found to be normal. Thereafter she was treated before Dr. Sudha at MB, Hospital Malappuram and the complainant got admitted in the hospital on 13/01/2015 and she gave birth to a female child on 15/01/2015.

15.      The grievance of the complainant is that she was undergone medical termination of pregnancy and also sterilization.  It was on advice given by Dr. Prathapan who did pancreatotomy for cystic lesion prior to the procedure of MTP and sterilization.  Dr. Prathapan advised so due to risk of fetal anatomy and maternal age.  Dr. Prathapan had rightly noted in the referral letter the high risk of pregnancy. The high-risk pregnancy involves increased health risks for the pregnant person, unborn baby or both. Health conditions and age over 35 or under 17 can make a pregnancy high risk, these pregnancies require close monitoring to reduce the chance of complication.

16.      The first opposite party did MTP and sterilization on 10/06/2014. Complainant approached the first opposite party to remove the suture   and thereafter on 16/6/2014 she reported before the 1^st opposite party with the complaint of pain to lower abdomen.  The 1^stopposite party did not give due consideration for her submission.  Due to non recovery of pain complainant again approached 1^st opposite party on 28/06/2014 and that time the response of the first opposite party was that it was the assumption of the complainant and nothing more.  The submission of the complaint is that, if the 1^stopposite party had taken due attention, close mitering and care to rule out the cause for the pain, the adverse situation could have been avoided. The contention of the complainant is that the lower abdomen pain was due to ongoing pregnancy. The opposite party No.1 during cross examination stated that the complainant was not approached her as a patient of high risk pregnancy. DW1 deposed that “പരാതിക്കാരി high risk pregnancy എന്നുള്ള നിലയ്ക്കല്ല എന്നെ സമീപിച്ചത്.  അങ്ങനെ ഏതെങ്കിലും രേഖകളിv കാണുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിv അത്ശരിയല്ല. But thereafter she admitted that complainant produced a reference letter issued by Dr. Prathapan and it is Ext. A1 “DW1 deposed that കുട്ടിയുടെ വളtച്ചക്കനുസരിച്ച് Sac വികസിച്ച് Pancreas ഗ്രന്ഥിയിലേക്കു വരും എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാv ശരിയാണ്”.  She also admitted that she was advised ultra sound scan to the complainant and through twin pregnancy or multiple pregnancy could have detected. First opposite party stated that, she could not see any symptom of multiple pregnancy to the complainant.  On examination of first opposite party, she could find only single fetus and it was seven weeks three days old.  Opposite party has stated that she has done D & E by manual. It was not success and so gentle curative was done.  She stated that she did not conduct a urine test since the complainant was undergone tubal sterilization. It was her impression by degenerating and regenerating pain may be the cause of severe pain to complainant.  Only because of that the first opposite party did not consider a urine test.   She did not advice ultrasound test in the absence of indication of ongoing pregnancy.  The opposite party admitted that in case of abortion, menstruation need not be regular but the complainant herein was having regular menstrual cycling.

17.         One Expert witness Dr.Rasheeda Beegum was examined in this complaint as DW2 and she has stated that seven weeks and three days is an early stage of pregnancy and if an MTP is conducted in an early stage of pregnancy there is chance for missing a product. According to her in spite of the best care, caution and attention on the part of doctor while doing MTP there is chance for continuing pregnancy and so it is a known and accepted medical situation.  She also admitted that in case of MTP at an early stage of pregnancy more care and caution from a doctor is expected.  She admits that pain to lower abdomen is a symptom of ongoing pregnancy.   In such a case, if a patient report within two weeks after MTP, she will suggest sonograph.  She submitted that the medical science depends on sonograph test to find out ongoing pregnancy.  The process to ensure what is removed is fetus or not, the histopathology examination is the proper method.  None of the documents established whether it was fetus or not, removed by the doctor.  She has stated that lady aged 42 years suffering from pancreas ailment, pregnancy causes complication. The witness also stated that, in case of MTP and D&E there is chance for delay for the menstrual period normally one or two weeks.  In rare cases, it may happen for more period. 

18.     The first opposite party admitted during the cross examination that she has perused the referral letter Ext. A1, which specifically states the condition of the complainant is high risk and also the reason for the same is open surgical removal of cyst from the pancreas of the complainant about four years ago.  The document shows that the complainant gave birth to a child 17 years ago.  The maternal aspect is concerned the age of complainant also a risky factor.   In short, the treatment of medical termination of pregnancy and sterilization in this case has to be done in a most carful manner. The only object of the complainant was to avoid the high-risk factor and for that purpose medical termination of pregnancy and sterilization was inevitable.  The complainant approached opposite party for that process and not for mere termination of pregnancy and sterilization.   The requirement was a surgical procedure which the complainant considered that first opposite party is competent and she will do that in a reasonable care and competency.   The question remains whether she could successfully remove the fetus as she claims or not and whether the first opposite party has taken due care in a case of high-risk pregnancy.   There is no document to show that the opposite party removed was fetus of the complainant.  The DW2 has categorically deposed there are certain scientific method to ascertain the nature of removed body part.   There may be several ways to ascertain the same but scientific method is to send for pathological examination. But what the first opposite party has done in this complaint is that the material removed during the MTP was placed in a water container and thus she ascertained the nature of removed material.  But the scientific method is to sendfor histological examination. There are certain occasions which require physician think of impact of the procedure.  In this complaint the complainant was referred for medical termination of pregnancy on health reason. So, the opposite party was liable to take due care on result of the procedure.  It can be seen that the opposite party could not establish that she could remove the fetus of the complainant.  The treatment record produced by the opposite party No.2 is also does not reveal, the procedure undergone after medical termination process. 

19.        Both witness of the opposite party admits that pain to lower abdomen is also a symptom of ongoing pregnancy. This complainant after MTP on 7^th day itself approached the opposite party with the complaint of pain to lower abdomen.  But the opposite party prescribed medicine for cough and neglected pain to lower abdomen.    On 28/6/2014, that is after 18 days of MTP complainant approached with the issue of pain to lower abdomen but the first opposite party treated it as an assumption of complainant.  The DW2 has definitely answered to the question what is to be done in such situation.  The deposition is that she will conduct sonogram and that is the approved scientific method to ascertain ongoing pregnancy.   It can be seen that the first opposite party has not taken due care in treating high risk pregnant woman while following MTP procedure.

20.     The complainant has produced documents of her continuing treatment.  She was under the care and treatment of Dr. Sudha, MBH Hospital, Malappuram and she gave birth to a female child on 15/1/2015 at about 7.42 am having weight of 3.3.Kg.  The scan report and medical details shows that LMP was 10/04/2014 and EDD was 15/1/2015. In short, the complainant was carrying a child after 10/04/2014.  It is evident that the procedure MTP done by the first opposite party was a failure.

21.        The contention of the opposite parties that continuing pregnancy after MTP is a known and accepted medical situation and it is documented and has stated in standard medical text books.  In such a situation the responsibility of the patient is to intimate the doctor and go back to the doctor.  Missing of the menstrual period is the 1^st stage of the pregnancy and the permissible period of doing MTP is 20 weeks.  Opposite parties are also contented that treatment given to the complainant was according to the universally accepted standard medical protocol.  But it can be seen that the complainant herein approached 1^st opposite party after one week of MTP procedure on 16/06/2014 and thereafter on 28/06/2014. The submission of the complaint is that both occasions she stated to the opposite parties that, she is suffering lower abdomen pain.  But the contention of the 1^stopposite party is that, the first time she complaint only cough and so medicine was prescribed for that but the second time the first opposite party admit that the complainant stated lower abdomen pain.  It can be seen that the 2^nd visit before the 1^st opposite party was after 18 days of MTP procedure.  On that day also the complainant was suffering lower abdomen pain.  But the 1^st opposite party did not care to ascertain the real cause of lower abdomen pain. The complainant was undergone MTP due to high-risk health reason.  Naturally it was the responsibility of the first opposite party to provide due care in the case of complainant.  None ascertaining the cause of lower abdomen pain is an omission on the part of first opposite party. It is admitted by DW1 and DW2 that there is chance for delay for menstruation after MTP.  So, the non-reporting of symptom of pregnancy by the complainant cannot be treated as lapse on the part of the complainant. Both occasions, that is on 16/06/2014 and 28/06/2014 the complainant had reported before the 1^st opposite party with the complaint of lower abdomen pain.  It is also an admitted fact that lower abdomen pain is symptom of ongoing pregnancy.  Hence it can be seen that there was lapse and absence of due care on the part of the first opposite party while doing MTP in a high-risk pregnancy. So, we find that there is lake of due care and deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.  In a case of medical negligence what is normally expected from a doctor is reasonable care and skill.  But in this case the first opposite party has not extended reasonable care in treating the complainant and also there is deficiency in service, we find the first point accordingly.

22.Point No.2:

         The complainant was aged 42 years and she gives birth to a child after 17 years of her younger child.  She had undergone surgery to remove cyst from pancreas. It was not her decision but as per the medical advice she decided to undergo MTP and sterilization.  It was found MTP procedure was a total failure after 20 weeks.   Termination of pregnancy 20 weeks is not advisable as per medical science.  So after detecting failure of MTP, considering the gestation period she was reluctant to undergo a further MTP as contented by the opposite parties.   The commission is of view that it is not a willful decision to continue pregnancy after detecting failure of MTP.  It can be seen that the complainant was under high pressure and even under the threat of life for the remaining period up to delivery.  She had undergone medication and extra care during the period of pregnancy.  She was anxious of health condition of the child as well as her own.  But under due care and treatment during the subsequent period, she was blessed with female child on an expected date of delivery, 15/1/2015.  Considering the entire aspects, she is entitled for reasonable amount as compensation.   She has taken additional care and medicine during this period and that also to be reimbursed.    The complainant submit that money cannot replace the hardship and in convenience caused to the complainant on account of the unfair, negligent, deficient service of the opposite parties, but she claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-.  The complainant pray for refund of Rs.35,000/- towards the treatment expenses paid to the opposite parties.  The complainant also prays for Rs. 5,0000/- on account of treatment expenses at present he is undergoing.  Moreover, he estimates an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- towards future treatment expenses.   The cost she estimates Rs. 10,000/-.

23.          In this case it can be seen that the first opposite party was working in the second opposite party hospital.  The complainant had   alleged that first opposite party was terminated from the service of second opposite party after this incident. Complainant also alleged that the first opposite party was not qualified post-graduation in Gynaecology and so she was not competent to perform the procedure.   But the second opposite party has not admitted that termination of first opposite party from service.  The deposition of DW2 also reveals the first opposite party was qualified to perform the procedure involved in this complaint. But the first opposite party being working in the institution of the second opposite party, the second opposite party is also liable for the defective service of the first opposite party. 

24 .      Considering the entire above facts and circumstances we allow the complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five lakh only) to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconveniences hardships   and mental agony to the complainant.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees Thirty five thousand only) on account of treatment expenses incurred by the complainant during the treatment by the opposite parties. 
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings.
4.  We do not consider the claim for future treatment and the undoing treatment at present want of documentary evidence. 

           The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which  the entire above amount  shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

            Dated this 28^thday of  February , 2022.

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant               : PW1 &PW2

PW1:Soudha.T (Complainant).

PW2: Sakeer Hussain (Witness).

Documents marked on the side of the complainant              : Ext.A1to A23

Ext.A1:Referral letter issued by Dr.Prathapan  dated  04/06/2014.

Ext.A2: Prescription issued by Dr.Prathapan dated 28/08/2014.

Ext A3: Prescription issued by  opposite party  on 6/6/2014.

Ext A4: Prescription  issued by opposite party  dated 16/06/2014.

Ext A5: Discharge summary  issued from opposite party dated 11/06/2014.

Ext.A6: Scan report from Almas Hospital dated 29/08/2014

Ext.A7: Letter  given by the opposite parties to the complainant dated 09/06/2014.

Ext A8 : USG report dated 6/06/2014.

Ext A9 : Discharge bill dated 11/06/2014.

Ext A10: Discharge summary from M.B Hospital ,Malappuram dated 31/10/2014.

Ext.A11: Path care diagnostic solution report dated 7/10/2014.

Ext.A12: Investigation report by Dr.Sudha  dated 1/09/2014.

Ext A13:  Report obtained from  maternal medicine Cimar Edappal dated 02/09/2014.

Ext A14: Report  issued by Dr. Saneesh Kumar from  Cimar Hospital ,Edappal dated

                26/9/2014.

Ext A15: Bill for  skins scan  dated 2/9/2014 .

Ext.A16: Bill  obtained from  Edappal hospital  dated 2/09/2014.

Ext.A17 : Bill  for Rs. 1099/- from Edappal hospital dated 2/09/2014.

Ext A18: Scan report dated 31/12/2014.

Ext A19:Scan report  dated 25/11/2014.

Ext.A20  :Discharge summary  obtained from MB Hospital dated  13/01/2015.

Ext A21 :Copy of birth certificate dated 4/3/2015

Ext.A22 :Discharge summary dated 27/11/2014.

Ext. A23 :A printout  produced by the complainant  from the  web page  of opposite  

                party after MIMS Hospital, Kozhikode to show the expert witness attached in

                the  complaint  was part of  opposite parties.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                 : DW1 & DW2

DW1 : Dr.B.Jasmi Beegum. (Opposite party)

DW2 : Dr.Rasheeda Beegum (Witness)

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party               : Ext. B1

Ext.B1: Case Sheet  pertaining to the  treatment  provided to the  complainant  from the 

               opposite party hospital. 

MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER