This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, S. Saravanan against order dated 23.1.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) passed in No. F.A. No.1227/2012. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant alongwith his wife Mrs. S. Umapriya approached the Respondent no./1/OP-1 Rasi Clinic where Dr. Thirumathi Rajakumari confirmed the 2nd pregnancy on 20.9.2007. Complainant and his wife had informed the OP-1 about extraction of 4 teeth of his wife on 18/19.9.2007 and that she consumed heavy doses of pain killer medicine and requested to advise for termination of pregnancy if the fetus would face any problem due to these medicines. The OP-1 had ruled out the doubt and assured for no effect on the fetus . She referred them to respondent no.2/OP-2 for scan. The OP-2 did first ultrasound scan on 22.12.2007 and recommended follow up scan at 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. OP-2 gave report that “Gravid uterus with single live intra uterine pregnancy corresponding to 12-13 weeks of gestational age, with adequate liquor.” On 18.4.2008 2nd scan was done by OP-2 and the findings are “Single foetus seen in, Longitudinal lie, with head in the lower pole. Fetal limb movements and breathing movements seen. Cardiac activity was present, and heart rate recorded by M mode was 143/minute (Regular). Liquor appears adequate.” 3rd Scan conducted by OP-2 on 6.6.2008 and the finding are “Real time B mode gray scale ultrasonography of the pelvis showed Gravid uterus with the following findings :- Single foetus seen in, Longitudinal lie, with head in the lower pole. Spine towards the maternal left anterior.fetal limb movements and breathing movements seen. Cardiac activity was present, and heart rate recorded by M mode was 131/minute (Regular). Regarding heart the OP-2 mentioned in all three reports that Cardiac activity was present and heart rate recorded by M mode as 165/143/131/ minutes (Regular). On 16.6.2008 a female baby was born under caesarian to the petitioner’s wife. The Pediatrician stated that the baby faced breathing trouble. Then the baby was shifted to Child Jesus Hospital. After ecocardiology, the heart doctor informed that the baby faces Tetrology of Fallot and asked to go to Chennai for further treatment. The doctors of Chennai observed that “15 days old female neonate with downs phenotype and Tetralogy of Fallot with severely hypoplastic MPA & PA confluence”. Due to negligence in not disclosing about the abnormalities even after cautioned, OP No.1 have not diagnose the fetus health and informed, so the baby born with major abnormalities. Hence, the complaint was filed before the District Forum by the petitioner/complainant against OPs seeking Rs.2.00 lakhs towards surgery charges, Rs.10.00 lakhs towards maintenance of affected baby and Rs.5.00 lakhs for mental agony. 3. The OP-1 contested the complaint. However, the District Forum finally dismissed the complaint No. 130/2010 vide its order dated 18.7.2011 as District Forum found no deficiency on the part of the OPs. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred First Appeal No. 227 of 2012 before the State Commission, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 23.01.2014. 5. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent no.1 and perused the record. 6. Respondents no.2 to 4 were deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 27.4.2015 of this Commission which states as follows:- “Shri S.Saravanan, petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Tiruchirappalli being CC no.130 of 2010 alongwithT.N.Consumer Federation. Shri S.Saravanan who claimed to be a victim of deficiency of service has filed this revision petition through his counsel Shri S.Vallinayagam. Since T.N. Consumer Federation initially was representing the main complainant as complainant no.2, he has been made respondent no.4 before this Commission. Since, the complainant has opted to be represented by counsel and not by Federation, in our view, now the Federation has no role to play in this revision petition and the Federation is not even a proper party, hence, the name of respondent no.4 to be deleted from the array of the parties. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that complainant has no grievance pertaining to any deficiency of service committed by respondent no.2 and that Indian Medical Council has been impleaded only because their opinion was sought. Since, no relief is claimed against respondent nos. 2 and 3, their names also to be deleted from the array of the parties. Leaned counsel for respondent no.1 states that he has not received copy of paper book. Counsel for petitioner is directed to supply complete set of paper book to counsel for the respondent no.1, within four weeks. List on 5.1.2016.” 7. The Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the OP-1/Respondent no.1 did not give the correct advice at the first instance about the adverse effects of the pain killer medicines which the wife of the petitioner had taken during her pregnancy due to extraction and treatment of her teeth. Moreover, OP-1 did not advise the patient to go for scan/ultrasound during 18-20 weeks of the pregnancy. This was very much required to detect any abnormality in the growth of developing baby and this would give time for abortion. However, the first ultrasound/scan was done on 22.12.2007 and report of the first ultrasound clearly recommended the following: CONCLUSION ULTRASOUND STUDY OF THE PELVIS SHOWS: “Gravid uterus with single live intra uterine pregnancy corresponding to 12-13 weeks of gestational age, with adequate liquor. RECOMMENDED: Follow up scan at 18-20 weeks.” 8. When the above ultrasound report dated 22.12.2007 was shown to OP-1, she did not suggest any ultrasound/scan after 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. It was argued that obviously no pregnant women will go for ultrasound/scan on her own without being advised by her Gynecologist. The OP-1 advised ultrasound scan which was undertaken on 18.4.2008. OP-1 in the written statement in para -7 has clearly admitted that the reports clearly state the gestational age of fetus, weight and liquor levels. The reports clearly reveal that the cardiac anomalies are not ruled out. If this was the case then OP-1 should have advised further investigations or remedial measures. The OP-2 in her cross examination has also stated “that in respect of antennal scan, we take scan referred only by doctors, without reference from the gynecologist we are not undertaking.” 9. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that both OP-1 and OP-2 have grossly erred in not advising correctly, not even doing the correct scan and giving the correct report.Both the fora below have not critically examined the issues involved and have superficially decided the case. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.1/OP-1 stated that the case of the complainant was that the OP-1 did not give the correct advice on the effects of the pain killers which the wife of the petitioner had taken during her dental treatment and there was no case of the complainant that the OP-1 did not advise the second ultrasound/scan at time. This is a new case being set up at the revisional stage which cannot be considered by this Commission. Learned counsel further argued that the first scan was done on 22.12.2007 and in the report of that scan it is clearly recommended that “Gravid uterus with single live intra uterine pregnancy corresponding to 12-13 weeks of gestational age, with adequate liquor. However, the complainant did not take it seriously and did not come for the second ultrasound/scan during the duration of 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. Had the complainant gone for that ultrasound/scan and come up with the report of that ultrasound to OP-1, OP-1 would have definitely give the correct advice. Therefore, in no way, OP-1 is deficient in this regard. The learned counsel also argued that during the course of cross-examination of the complainant he has admitted that he has not filed any paper relating to the dental treatment which was necessary to prove his case and that is why the State Commission has not accepted his complaint. It was not the first delivery of the wife of the complainant and it was the second delivery of the wife of the complainant, hence the complainant and his wife would be having some basic knowledge about pregnancy and delivery. Even then they did not go for the second ultrasound/scan within the duration prescribed by the sonography specialist/OP-2. It was also mentioned by the learned counsel that the report of the ultrasound clearly states: Please note: Not all anomalies can be detected by ultrasound study Routine triple screening for trisomy evaluation is suggested for mothers beyond 35 yrs. Fetal echocardiogram/3D/4D ultrasonogram study is suggested around 20 weeks rule out cardiac and other structural anomalies. 11. No evidence produced on record that the said defect in heart would have been detected by the said scan/sonography. On the other hand, OP-2 in its evidence states that no abnormalities have been detected in any of the ultrasound. 12. It is also emphasized by the learned counsel that the complainant in cross examination has stated that the first delivery was cesarean and it was also conducted by OP-1 and considering her a good doctor he again consulted her for the second delivery. This itself shows that the complainant had no doubt about the abilities of the concerned doctor/OP-1. The learned counsel further stated the State Commission in its order has observed that : “7. There is no allegation regarding he qualification, competency, skill and experience of the opposite parties in dealing with the case and we have to note that both the opposite parties possess Post Graduate qualifications and they are well qualified and competent enough to diagnose and treat the case. 8. It is also relevant to note that no medical prescription or other records are produced and no evidence is adduced regarding the averment that her 4 teeth were extracted in the recent past and that she consumed heavy doses of medicines and pain killers. Moreover, there is no evidence on record on the point that the complainants informed the opposite parties about the extraction of teeth and taking heavy doses of medicines and pain killers and the probable impact on the fetus.” 13. Thus, right from the very beginning, the complaint of the complainant was in respect of the advice of OP-1 on the dental treatment and nowhere it has been alleged in the complaint that the OP-1 was deficient in not advising scan/ultrasound between 18-20 weeks of pregnancy. This is a new allegation that has been levelled against the OP-1 at the time of revision petition which cannot be allowed and cannot be sustained. Even in the legal notice sent to the OPs, there is no mention of any deficiency for not advising scan/ultrasound to be taken up within 18-20 weeks of the pregnancy. The only allegation in the legal notice was that OP-1 wrongly advised that there would be no adverse effect of medicines taken for dental treatment on the child. The learned counsel further mentioned that the fact of the matter is that none of the ultrasound report has mentioned any abnormality in the child. According to the OP-2 assertion, this might not have been detected in the scan/ultrasound as the foot note written on the ultrasound report clearly states that “Not all anomalies can be detected by ultrasound study. Routine triple screening for trisomy evaluation is suggested for mothers beyond 35 yrs. Fetal echocardiogram/3D, 4D ultrasonogram study is suggested around 20 weeks rule out cardiac and other structural anomalies. 14. There was no occasion for the OP-1 to advice any higher level scan/ultrasound. Thus, there has been no negligence on the part of OP-1 because first of all, there is no proof that complications developed due to the effect of medicines taken for dental treatment and secondly, there was no occasion to advice any higher level scan as all the scans were found normal as per the report of the sonography expert, OP-2. Moreover, if the complainant was so particular, he could have asked OP-1 or could have got the scan/ultrasound done at the time of 18-20 weeks of pregnancy as the same was already advised by the OP-2 on the report of the first scan/ultrasound dated 22.12.2007. 15. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant as well as for OP-1. I have also gone through the material on record. The original complaint was filed alleging deficiency on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 both. However, at the revision stage, at the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant does not have any grievance against OP-2., this Commission vide order dated 27.4.2015 deleted the OP-2 from the array of the parties. Now, I have to examine the deficiency of OP-1 in respect of the complainant. Though it has been argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the OP-1 was deficient in not advising the scan/ultrasound to be done between 18-20 weeks of pregnancy, whereas I find no mention of these allegations either in the legal notice or in the complaint itself. At the revision stage, the scope of revisionary power is limited as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654; “Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.” 16. The OP-2 in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination has clarified that all the scan/ultrasound reports of the complainant were normal and no abnormality was detected by her. As the complainant has indicated no grievance against the service of OP-2/respondent no.2, no deficiency can also be attributed to OP-1 as she relied on the results/reports of OP-2. Moreover, the first report of scan dated 22.12.2007 clearly advice/recommended follow up scan at 18-20 weeks. Had the complainant been aware and particular about the tests, the complainant could have asked OP-1 and could have scan/ultrasound done at that particular time. Even the later ultrasound report have not stated any deformity in any of the organs and the reports were treated as normal by sonography expert, OP-2. Moreover, there is a foot note in the report dated 22.12.2007 of the ultrasound/scan whichstates “Not all anomalies can be detected by ultrasound study. Routine triple screening for trisomy evaluation is suggested for mothers beyond 35 yrs. Fetal echocardiogram/3D, 4D ultrasonogram study is suggested around 20 weeks rule out cardiac and other structural anomalies. 17. So far as the allegation made in the complaint that OP-1 wrongly advise the complainant regarding medicine taken for dental treatment will not have adverse effect is concerned, I find that there is no evidence available on the record that the abnormality developed due to the effect of medicines taken for dental treatment. No expert opinion has been made available on record to prove this allegation. 18. Based on the above discussion, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the Revision Petition No.2159 of 2014, S. Saravanan vs. M/s. Rasi Clinic and others is dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. | 
