1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.  The Ops be directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount Rs.500000/ as compensation for loss and injury caused to her.
2. The Ops be directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount Rs. 500000/ as compensation for harassment.
3. The Ops be directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount Rs.25000/ for litigation expenses.
4. Any other suitable facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the complainant.

2. (a) Complainant stated that she was married with Mr. Rizwan Khan in the year 2018 and she had conceived out of the said wedlock. She got herself checked at the Op no. 1 hospital on 25.2.2022 for delivery of the child and  remained under treatment there  she was admitted in the OP no.1 hospital on 28.2.2022 for delivery. She was operated upon for delivery of the child on 28.2.2022 and she was blessed with a female baby. She was discharged on 4.3.2022 by the OP no.1 hospital. When she was discharged, she had been suffering from abnormal uterine bleeding and abdominal pain/ stomache after operation. Complainant could not get the relief from the complaint of bleeding and abdominal pain despite of giving treatment by the op no.1 hospital. Again she visited the op no.1 hospital on 7.4.2022 where she was suggested by the Dr. Arpita Goen M.S. that the problem was post-delivery effects and would be cured within a reasonable  time  but she could not get any relief despite of treatment given by the specialist at the Op no.1 hospital for about 2 weeks.      

(b)   Complainant thought to have a second opioin of the other doctor and visited OP no.2 hospital on 21.4.2022 where Dr. Vimlesh Sharma M.S. had given treatment to cure the ailment but the problem remained subsisting.

(c) Complainant got the impression that her problem could be solved at Op no.1 hospital where she was operated upon for delivery and therefore she visited the Op no.1 hospital on 17.5.2022. She was given treatment again by Dr. Arpita Goen M.S. on specialty OPD card dated 17.5.2022. Complainant was advised there that she had been suffering  from aliment on account of hormones disturbances but she could get any relief there .

(d) Complainant visited Medwin Hospital Meerut on 10.6.2022 where she was given treatment but no relief.   

(e) Complainant  visited Op no.2 hospital on 20.6.2022 . Complainant again visited Medwin Hospital Meerut on 21.6.2022 and 24.6.2022 where she was given treatment but no relief.

(f) Complainant was in trouble and she was fighting for getting the relief and consulted Dr. Garima Jain at Meerut on 28.6.2022 who advised her for admission in Anand Hospital and she was admitted there on 29.6.2022 and remained under treatment of Dr. Garima Jain till 1.7.2022. Dr. Garima Jain also could not provide her any relief. On 16.7.2022 complainant again visited Medwin Hospital Meerut where she was given treatment and she was suggested for treatment at Veena Nursing Home, Rohini, Delhi she was given treatment there but no relief .

(g|) Complainant visited Medwin Hospital Meerut and She was admitted there on 18.10.2022 from where she was discharged on 19.10.2022. She was operated upon there on 28.10.2022 and hysteroscopy was done there. A foreign body (gauge piece) was removed from inside the uterine cavity. Complainant remained at Medwin Hospital Meerut under treatment of Dr. Poonam Rathi who had performed hysteroscopy on 28.10.2022. She was prescribed treatment on 4.11.2022 by Dr. Poonam Rathi. Complainant was feeling well thereafter.

(h) Complainant had been suffering from abnormal bleeding and abdominal pain since the date of operation performed at Op no.1 hospital which was due to a foreign body (gauge piece) inside the uterine cavity as revealed in hysteroscopy done by Dr. Poonam Rathi  Medwin Hospital Meerut who had also issued a certificate dated 4.11.2022 to the effect that Mrs Falak was suffering from dirty vaginal discharge. Her hysteroscopy was done on 18.10.2022. Foreign body ( gauge piece) was removed from uterine cavity.  

(i)  Complainant has stated that the facts of the case speak that a gauge piece was left inside the uterine cavity of the complainanat while operating upon her at Op no.1 hospital and the maxim, res ipsa loquitor meaning there by the things speak themselves is clearly applicable and Op no.1 hospital is liable for acts of commission or omission and negligence of its doctors in operating upon the complainant. Complainant has also stated that the presence of foreign body (gauge piece ) inside uterine cavity was clearly an act of commission or omission of the doctors who had performed later on operation upon the complainant at Devki Nandan Hospital, Hapur ( OP no.2) 

(j) Complainant has stated that she had incurred total expenses amounting Rs.500000/ and she and her husband have undergone mental agony and physical suffering and is entitled for compensation for Rs.500000/ and litigation expenses Rs.25000/. 

3. Op no.1 has stated in WS that the patient Falak Tomar W/o Rizwan Khan was seen in OPD on 25.2.2022 and she was seen by Dr. Arpita Goen M.S. ( Obs & Gynae). The patient was advised for routine test and treatment was given. On 28.2.2022 she was admitted and lower (uterine) Segment Caesarean Section (L S C S) was performed same day and a female baby was delivered. After operation she was shifted towards further management under the care of Dr. Arpita Goen. She was discharged on 4.3.2022. She came to hospital on 7.4.2022 with complaints of fever and bleeding PV. She had no complaint of pain in abdomen or any foul smelling discharge PV suggestive of any foreign body. On 17.5.2022 she came with complaints of bleeding PV and was suggested as hormonal disturbances which is very common post-delivery and was advised for hormonal tablets. She had concealed the facts of undergoing D&C on 5.5.2022 at some other hospital as it is clearly visible in the prescription dated 26.6.2022  provided by Dev Nandini Hospital. As per USG done on 21.4.2022 ,uterus is  anteverted, normal in size with homogenous myometrium endometrial cavity is dilated with hyperechoic lesion/ collection of size 28 * 21 mm seen in the fundal region- ?  RPOC. 22 mm sized simple cyst is noted in the right ovary. USG done on 26.4.2022 showed, uterus is anteverted,normal in size with homogenous myometrium endometrial cavity is dilated with hyperechoic lesion/collection of size 28-21mm seen in fundal region-? RPOC. She was advised for complete blood count (CBC) and beta human chorionic gonadotropin tests which were performed on 26.4.2022. BHCG was positive and sign of early pregnancy. USG report donot show any gauge piece in the uterus. She had undergone for D&C on 5.5.2022 which was concealed by her while visiting the hospital on 17.5.2022. there is a strong possibility that gauge piece was left uterine cavity by the doctors conducting D&C as no gauge piece is used in LSCS. Op has also stated that the Op hospital is insured with Oriental Insurance Company under error and omission policy dated 16.6.2022.   
4. Op no.2 and 3 have not contested  the case despite of sufficient service.
5.  Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. and OP no. 1 has also filed his affidavit and papers in support of its pleadings.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the doctors of the ops hospitals were negligent in rendering medical services to the complainant? If so its effect.  
8. (a) Admittedly, complainant was admitted in op no. 1 hospital on 28.2.2022 and she was operated upon for Lower Uterine Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS) same day and a female baby was delivered. The doctors were under obligation to conduct LSCS with due care and diligence. The complainant was discharged on 4.3.2022 but she had been suffering from abnormal uterine bleeding and abdominal pain after undergoing LSCS. It shows that the doctors did not discharge their duties with due care and diligence which resulted in abnormal bleeding and abdominal pain. Complainant visited the OP no.1 hospital on 7.4.2022 with the above complaint and she was given treatment under consultation of Dr. Arpita Goen M.S. who suggested the problem as a post-delivery effect. Complainant could not get any relief despite of providing treatment at op no.1 hospital and then she thought to have second opinion at Op no 2 hospital  on 21.4.2022 where USG were conducted on 21.4.2022 and 26.4.2022 and on 5.5.2022 Dilatation and Curettage (D&C) was performed  but the aliment could not be cured. 

(b) On 17.5.2022 complainant again visited OP no.1 hospital with same complaint and she was given treatment there again under consultation of Dr. Arpita Goen M.S. who assumed the cause of bleeding a post delivery hormonal disturbance and complainant was advised for taking hormonal tablets. The complainant had under gone LSCS on 28.2.2022 and post partum hemorrhage (PPH) takes place for about 6 to 8 weeks after delivery . Complainant had been suffering from abnormal uterine bleeding even after expiration of 8 weeks from the date of delivery on 28.2.2022 and therefore it could not be said that the complainant had been suffering from abnormal bleeding as a post- delivery effect and it was some other cause which could had been  investigated and detected by the doctors. In the absence of  performing such a diagnosis for providing proper treatment to cure the aliment, it cannot be said that the doctor had discharged duties with care and diligence. It amounts to negligence  in rendering medical services to the complainant and is deficiency on the part of hospital in rendering medical services by its doctors.

(c) Complainant had also visited op no.2 hospital on 21.4.2022 and 26.4.2022 where USG tests were conducted disclosing the presence of Retained Products of Conception (RPOC).Complainant had under gone D&C procedure  there on 5.5.2022 to remove RPOC from inside the uterus. The possibility of leaving the gauze piece inside the uterus while performing D& C procedure at OP no.2 hospital cannot be ruled out. OP no.2 hospital has not contested the case and the allegation of leaving the gauze piece while performing D&C procedure at OP no.2 Hospital cannot be denied. Thus the doctors at OP no.2 hospital cannot be absolved from the liability of rendering medical service to the complainant with due care and diligence and it amounts to negligence on the part of the doctors at op no.2 hospital and is deficiency in service on their part.

(d) It is evident that RPOC were present in the uterus of the complainant which were removed by adopting D&C procedure at Op no.2 hospital and therefore the presence of RPOC after performing LSCS at OP no.1 hospital on 28.2.2022 cannot be ruled out even assuming the absence of gauze piece in the uterus which caused the bleeding continue and could not be cured at op no.1 hospital under the treatment of Dr. Arpita Goen treating it post-delivery hormonal disturbances. Thus the cause of bleeding while undergoing treatment at op no.1 hospital was the presence of RPOC in the uterus assuming the absence of gauze piece inside the uterus. The doctors at op no.1 hospital were under obligation to diagnose the cause of bleeding by adopting hysteroscopy and D & C procedure which was not done at OP no.1 hospital. It also cannot be totally denied that cotton is not used in LSCS which was conducted at OP no.1 hospital and the possibility of leaving the gauze piece at op no. 1 hospital while performing LSCS also cannot be totally denied. Thus there was negligence on the part of the doctors OP no. 1 hospital  in rendering services to the complainant.

(e) It is alleged that the complainant was advised for CBC (Complete Blood Count) and BHCG (Beta Human  Chorionic Gonadotropin) test which were performed  on 26.4.2022 and BHCG was found positive as a sign of early pregnancy.  In this regard it is important to note that the PPH remains effective for 6 to 8 weeks after delivery and therefore there was nil chance of early pregnancy. Moreover, It was for the doctors to diagnose the cause of bleeding by adopting hysteroscopy and D&C procedure and they could have known about the early pregnancy and the products of early pregnancy could have been removed to cure the bleeding. It was not done by the doctors of op no.1 hospital and they can not be escaped from liability of exercising due care and diligence in providing treatment to the complainant.

(f) On 20.10.2022 Dr. Poonam Rathi Medwin Hospital Meerut removed a foreign body (gauze piece) from inside the uterine cavity of the complainant by adopting hysteroscopy and she was given treatment whereby aliment was cured and complainant felt well. Dr. Poonam Rathi has issued a certificate dated 4.11.20222 wherein it has been certified that the complainant had been suffering from dirty vaginal discharge. Her hysteroscopy was done. Foreign body was removed from uterine cavity. This clearly establishes the negligence in rendering medical services to the complainant by the doctors   at op no.1 and 2 hospital.

(g) On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the doctors at both the hospitals are liable for not exercising due care and diligence in rendering medical services to the complainant and they are held negligent in discharging their duties which is deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the expenses incurred by her in treatment and for compensation for harassment with litigation expenses.

9.  The question formulated above is decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.
10. The law laid down in the ruling V. Kishan Rao V/s  Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital decided by Hon’ble  Supreme Court on 8.3.2010 is applicable to the present case. It has been held in this ruling that one of the duties of the doctor  towards his patient is a duty of care in deciding  what treatment is to be given and also a duty to take care in the administration of treatment. A breach of  any of those duties may lead to an action for negligence by the patient.
11.  The second question of consideration before us is the quantum of reimbursement and compensation to be awarded against the Ops ?`
12. Complainant has stated on oath in her affidavit the amount of expenses incurred by her in treatment. Complainant has calculated the amount at Rs.500000/ incurred for hospitalization, surgery, test, medicines, conveyance, attendant and loss of earning of her husband who took her  care in providing treatment. Complainant has filed papers in support of her claim. Complainant has also claimed compensation for mental agony and physical sufferings at Rs.500000/ and Rs.25000/ as litigation expenses. We are of view that the complainant is entitled for reimbursement Rs. 500000/, incurred in her treatment and compensation for harassment Rs. 400000/ and litigation expenses Rs.20000/. Op no. 1 and 2 shall pay the amount in equal parts.  OP no.1 has impleaded insurance company as OP no.3 to incur liability. OP no. 3 has not contested the case. OP no.1 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order
13. We hereby direct to Op no.1 and 3 insurance company to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount of Rs. 250000/ with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum and Rs. 200000/ compensation for harassment and litigation expanses Rs.10000/ .  Op no2 is also directed  to pay  the complainant amount of Rs. 250000/ with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum and Rs. 200000/ compensation for harassment and litigation expanses Rs.10000/ .
14. Op shall comply with the direction within a month failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
15. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.