The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 against the opposite parties praying that opposite parties be directed to make the payment of Rs.17,00,000/- alongwith interest and litigation expenses to her. Opposite parties be further directed to give any other relief to which she is entitled to under law and equity.

2. The case of the complainants in brief is that she is graduate and originally belongs to Delhi and got married with her husband Bharat Aggarwal resident of Batala in the year 2010 and has two children i.e. one son now aged about 1.1/2 year and one daughter now aged about 5 years. On or about 19.7.2016 she felt acute pain in her abdomen and the very next date i.e. on 20.7.2016 she went to opposite party no.4 and 5 who conducted medical examination scan etc and gave a diagnostic report and she was having pregnancy and referred to another diagnostic examination from the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and accordingly she approached the opposite party no.1 and 2 who got examined her through the opposite party no.2 and 3 and gave a report dated 21.7.2016 with the conclusion "complex multicystic mass-right adnexia", which meant that she was having the abovesaid trouble in the right adnexia and advised her to go back to opposite party no.4 and for complex multicystic mass right adnexia. The opposite party no.5 advised her to undergo an immediate operation in her hospital for the removal of the right adnexia otherwise her right adnexia would burst resulting into her instant death. Her husband got her examined from M/s.Uppal Diagnostic, New Delhi through Dr.Maneesh Uppal in his report it was stated that the right adnexia was not having any trouble and the problem was with the left adnexial mass and further reported that the features were strongly suggestive of an ectopic pregnancy. Thereafter, her parents took her to Sukhmani Hospital, New Delhi who inspected the reports of the opposite party no.1 to 5 and also abovesaid reports of Uppal Diagnostic dated 24.7.2016 and after thoroughly examining and admitting the report of Uppal Diagnonists advised that her case was strong ectopic pregnancy and the diagnosis of Uppal Diagnostic New Delhi were true and correct and advised for treatment of her left adenaxia. The opposite parties were fully made aware of the fact that the previous two children were born in surgerian operation and had she undergone the said operation as per the diagnosis and advise of the opposite parties her uterus must have been badly damaged and she would have become incapable of any pregnancy thereafter and her life would have been spoiled more so, even her life would have been curtailed. It is next pleaded that opposite parties acted not only negligently but also criminally while conducting her diagnosis and by advising her operation which was not at all necessary and that she had absolutely no problem with the right adnexia of her body on the contrary it was the left side of adnexia which was slightly effected which is being cured by the doctors of Sukhmani Hospital i.e. Dr.Mrs. Kanwal Preet Gandhi and Dr.B.B.Dash of Rejoice, Gynae experts of Delhi. She has further pleaded that she is a qualified young lady and is running successfully the business of finance at Batala for the last couple of years and is earning not less than Rs.25,000/- per month and income tax payee. She by the abovementioned negligence, deliberate and illegal act of the opposite parties have suffered great joint physically and mentally thus she is entitled to claim damages of Rs.17,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A.from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was issued to opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 to 3 has appeared and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; the complainant does not fall under ambit of definition of complainant as per act; the opposite party no.2 has been wrongly arrayed in this complaint as the opposite party no.2 is neither proprietor not having any concern with opposite party no.1 and alleged report dated 24.7.2016 is not prepared as per instructions and guidelines of All India Medical Institution. On merits, it was submitted that it is matter of record that on 20.7.2016, the complainant went to opposite party no.4 and 5 who conducted the medical examination and referred to another diagnostic examination and accordingly, the complainant approached to opposite party no.1 and 3 and gave report dated 21.7.2016 with conclusion Complex multicystic mass right adexia. It is further submitted that in report dated 21.7.2016 the complainant was advised and suggested for test of Clinical Correlation & B.HCG Level but the complainant had never turned back for further follow up. Moreover, in the report dated 21.7.2016, it is clearly mentioned that Left Ovary shows 8.2x7.9 cm dominant follicle meaning thereby water balloon exist on left side of ovary of the complainant. Now, if we compare the report dated 24.7.2016, it is mentioned about left adnxea that well defined cystic area meaning thereby some follicle was found. Report dated 21.7.2014 was prepared at 3 weeks 4 days whereas alleged report dated 24.7.2016 is more than 4 weeks. In alleged report it was mentioned that on right ovary, there is benign cystic lesion but it is not mentioned and characterized in report that whether such cystic is complex or simple and report dated 21.7.2016, it is clearly mentioned and characterized. It has been next stated that both reports are prepared by different type of test conducted by different means of machines. The report dated 21.7.2016 is outcome of test of abdominal ultrasound and report dated 24.7.2016 is outcome of transvaginal ultrasound which is more accurate from abdominal ultrasound. This fact is also admitted by the complainant. The complainant has intentionally twisted the facts in her favour by playing the words of medical terminology in order to extract monetary benefits illegally. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.

4. Opposite parties no.4 and 5 has appeared and filed their joint written reply by taking the preliminary objection that the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, it was admitted that as per OPD Slip the patient had come for checkup to the clinic of the opposite party no.5 on 20.07.2016. The opposite party no.5 medically examined the patient and after the initial investigation the pregnancy test was positive and as per the history disclosed by the complainant with respect to the bleeding from 10.7.2016 to 14.7.2016, last LMP on 26.06.2016, the opposite party advised for ultrasound from some centre and on 21.07.2016 the complainant had scanned from the PGI Radio Diagnostic Centre and after going through she seen the report from PGI Radio Diagnostic Centre. The opposite party no.5 advised the surgery/treatment/consultation from some specialist. The opposite party never conducted any ultrasound and the opinion on the basis of the history, checkup and the ultrasound report. It was further submitted that if any doctor asked the patient to take treatment or opinion from some other expert there is nothing wrong in the same. Rather it is for the betterment for the well being of the patient. Moreover the opposite party never made panic the patient but however as per the medical norms the treatment of any medical problem is to be started as soon as possible before arisen of any further complication. The opposite party advised the complainant as per medical norms, guidelines and nomenclature. The opposite party no.5 is a qualified, having requisite skill and having experience of more than 35 years in the medical profession. Even though the opposite party never conducted any ultrasound and the report of the both the ultrasound has got no concern with the opposite party as after taking the report from PGI Ultrasound centre by the complainant and after the advise as per report, the complainant never come to the opposite party for further checkup. It was next submitted that it has no concern with the opposite party from where the complainant has taken the further treatment as the opposite party no.5 already advised for further treatment from some specialist. Thus the opposite party never acted negligently. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to dismiss with costs.

5. Counsel for the ccomplainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed the evidence.

6. Counsel for the opposite party no.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Divyesh Mahajan Radiologist Ex.OP-1,2,3/1 and closed the evidence.

7. Counsel for the opposite party no.4 and 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.Avtar Kaur Ex.OP-4,5/1 and closed the evidence.

8. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the ample opportunity available for the purpose. We observe that the complainant side has not produced (on records) any cogent evidence or even otherwise an acceptable documentary evidence of legal value so as to prove her allegations as put forth in the present complaint. Somehow, the layman’s interpretation(s) of the opposite parties’ short notes on prescriptions (Ex.C1 - Ex.C3) are deviated/ imbalanced to support the complainant’s own version; otherwise the diagnosis does tally with that of Delhi doctors (Ex.C4 to Ex.C7) though prescribed ‘treatment’ differs as per their own expertise, exposure and perception etc.

9. We further find that the complainant has failed to establish her charges of great ‘panic’ as intentionally created upon her by the opposite parties for ulterior motives but here the OP Doctors have simply expressed their suggestive opinion of the possible treatment of the ‘ailments’ to which the complainant has apparently reacted with exceptional sensitivity. All the exhibited evidentiary documents do indicate ‘dysfunction’ of both the left and right side organs with ‘ectopic’ inception and all the attending doctors have concurred on diagnosis though differing on cure. It has always been the complainant’s own discretion to have ‘second opinion’ and treatment of her choice and she has exercised it well. Moreover, it has not been anyway proved on records that the opinion/treatment as put forth by the opposite parties (here) has been medically ‘wrong and incorrect’. These different opinions are not ‘unwarranted’ so long as these do not drift away from the known and acceptable medical science. Lastly, we find the lone depositions (Affidavits Ex.OP.1, 2, 3/1 and Ex.OP4, 5/1) by the opposite parties to be quite true, genuine & bonafide and thus accept these as admissible on records. We are also convinced with the OP’s plea that going by the medical precautionary custom and practice first an abdominal scan is advised to be followed by the BHCG Test and/or the Trans Vaginal US Scan, in case of need and necessity. Further, there may have been many other findings on other trivial issues but with main complaint failing to hold water (at its prime allegation) the favorable findings as to its ‘admissibility/maintainability’ and ‘jurisdiction’ etc with no loss having actually incurred are of little solace and/or legal interest to any of and/or all of the participants. Thus, we prefer to stall here, itself.

10. Finally, in the light of the all above, we do not see any merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER its dismissal, however, with no orders as to its costs.

11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President.

ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)

June 05,2017. Member

*MK*