A.P. SAHI, J, PRESIDENT 1. This Revision Petition arises out of the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Etah (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) dated 12.05.1999, as affirmed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) vide its Order dated 19.05.2022. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the District Forum erroneously construed the real issue involved and came to a wrong finding of negligence against the Petitioners in a case relating to abortion that was conducted after taking due care and exercising due diligence as required under medical science but in spite of evidence of the diligence of the Petitioners, the District Forum was swayed away by considerations that were not germane to either the issue or fact or in law. It is, therefore, submitted that the Order of the District Forum suffers from infirmities and its affirmance by the State Commission also proceeds on erroneous assumptions. It is submitted that learned Judicial Member of the State Commission has extracted copiously from sources that were not known to the Counsel for the Petitioners and has relied on the Indian Evidence Act and the Latin phrase ‘res ipsa loquitur’ to arrive at the conclusion, which is not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission. It is further submitted that the medical expertise recitals contained in the Impugned Order was neither subject matter of the pleadings nor was the Counsel for the Petitioners confronted with the same and the reliance placed on the judgments referred to therein are not applicable to the controversy. 3. Learned Counsel has invited attention of the Court to internal page 47 of the State Commission’s Order, which is at page 59 of the paper-book, to contend that mere conclusions have been given in a short paragraph commenting upon the act of the Petitioners as “greed” and the performance of the Petitioners only as “an act for earning money”, which the learned Counsel contends was uncalled for an is not based on any evidence. It has wrongly been concluded that the absence of a gynecologist clearly saddled the Petitioners with an obligation to have not proceeded with the abortion, inasmuch as Petitioners No.1 and 3 is a qualified doctor whereas Petitioner No.2 is a trained nurse, holding the qualification of a Second Lieutenant in the Army at SFMC, Pune, with a qualified post-graduate degree in B.Sc., functioning in the Army Medical Corps (AMC). She was promoted as a Captain, from where she resigned and thereafter started assisting her husband in the Petitioner No.1 Nursing Home. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that Petitioner No.2 never depicted herself to be a lady doctor or a gynecologist but she is a trained nurse, having the qualification as stated above. 4. The third argument of the learned Counsel is that even otherwise the case was one of emergency and he has relied on Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology to contend that medical termination of pregnancy in an emergency can be conducted by a medical practitioner irrespective of his experience or training in gynecology or obstetrics. However, he or she is of the opinion in good faith that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of pregnant woman. 5. Learned Counsel contends that this aspect of the matter has also been overlooked by the State Commission and instead has labored hard upon the various dimensions of medical jurisprudence with which the case had no concern. To draw the inference of the negligence on the part of the Petitioners, the State Commission also distinguished the words “ability and capability” to hold that the Petitioners ought to have referred the case to a Hospital at Delhi or the Post Graduate Institute or some other Super Speciality Hospital, which they did not choose to do. It is in these circumstances that the contentions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners pray for setting aside the impugned judgments and orders. 6. We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that Petitioner No.3 is not a gynecologist and claims to have been assisted by Petitioner No.2, who is his wife, claiming herself to be a qualified and trained Nurse. We have gone through the judgment of the District Forum and it is indicated therein that Petitioners No.2 and 3 are not registered by the Certification Council for the purpose of termination of pregnancy. It is further evident that the termination was carried out by Petitioner No.2, which Petitioner No.3 is said to have helped in conducting. There was no consent letter obtained while conducting the termination of the pregnancy and it is in these circumstances that the findings were recorded on the basis of material that was adduced before the District Forum. 7. The State Commission has devoted a lot of material with regard to the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur but at the same time has also discussed the case relating to medical negligence where this doctrine was invoked in order to compute damages. Certain subjective observations have been made on “ability and capability” and also “greed” but even if that is ignored the material on record and the circumstances, as discussed, clearly indicate that neither the Nursing Home was equipped with the basic facilities conforming to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 nor was ample care taken by the Petitioners in spite of the fact that they knew fully well that they are not trained to carry out the procedure of the termination that ultimately resulted in the death of the patient. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the submissions advanced. The findings and conclusions drawn by the Fora below cannot be faulted with. 8. The Revision Petition lacks substance and is accordingly dismissed. | 
