1. The main question in this petition swirls around, hether the OP Doctor performed D & C properly? Whether she has acted as per the standards of Medical Practice? Was it a medical negligence? 2. Facts in Brief: The complainant got here urine pregnancy tests (UPT) performed in different labs on 16/2/2007, 15/4/2007 shown positive test result. The UPT performed on 7/5/2007 and 25/5/2007 showed Negative result. The complainant consulted OP on 10/6/2007; OP prescribed medicines and Sonography was done and advised for D & C. The OP performed D & C on 13/6/2007. The D & C was done negligent manner, no cleanness. Part of fetus came out which was sent to Bikaner for examination. Complainant felt one part of fetus remained in her womb, felt pain and bleeding for which on 23/6/2007 she went to Bikaner at Chalana Hospital and took treatment form Dr. Sunita Gupta from 26/6 to 1/7/2007. Therefore, alleged negligence by OP for performing incomplete D & C a complaint No.155/2007 was filed by complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Churu. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.101000/- to the complainant. 4. Against the order of District Forum the OP filed an appeal FA 423/2008 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan(in short tate Commission. 5. The State Commission after hearing both the parties accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the complainant filed this revision petition. 7. We have heard the counsel of both parties who argued at length and reiterated the same arguments advanced before the State Commission. We have perused the evidence on record and referred several medical texts of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 8. It was admitted fact that complainant underwent D & C by OP-2 and advised the D & C material for HPE and called her for further treatment after getting HPE report. But, it is pertinent to note that complainant neither brought HPE report nor turned up for follow-up. But, she went to Bikaner and taken treatment from Dr. Sunita Gupta for pelvic pain. She was admitted for 5 days from 26/6/2007 to 1/7/2007. 9. Dr. Sunita Gupta advised for Ultrasonography (USG) by Radiologist Dr. R.K. Vishnoi who performed it and opined that the Uterus is bulky but no Products of Conception (POC) seen. Therefore, it is clear that the OP-2 performed D & C properly and nothing left in the uterus. 10. It should be borne in mind that the D & C is a blind procedure, despite the gynecologist curette properly there are chances of material to be left in uterine cavity. If D & C performed with excessive/ vigorous force may result in to injury to uterine cavity. Therefore, we do not find any element of negligence by OP-2 in performing D & C. 11. It is true that, subsequently, the entire management of such patient (complainant) depends upon the HPE report but, the complainant failed to bring HPE report. But, complainant took treatment form Dr. Sunita Gupta at Bikaner, who also treated her conservatively on the basis of USG report which confirms that No products of conception (POC) in uterus. But, the constitutional symptoms of pain and bleeding are the sequel of previous D & C not negligence by OP. 12. There was no pregnancy which was ascertained by the HPE report given by a Pathologist Dr. V.K. Choudhari, MD Path as a Placental Polyp. As per report grossly it was 5x3x2 cm; complete removal of such large polyp is difficult by D & C; and if any remnants remain in uterus will expelled spontaneously. 13. What constitutes Medical Negligence is now well established by a plethora of Rulings of the Honorable Supreme court of India and by several orders of this commission. Three principles are applied; i. Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected of an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; ii. Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis including diagnostic tests and treatment) in the case that would be adopted by such a doctor of ordinary skill in accord with (at least) one of the responsible bodies of opinion of professional practitioners in the field. iii. Whether the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor, according to the said body of medical opinion, were of the time when the events leading to the allegation of medical negligence occurred and not of the time when the dispute was being adjudicated. Our answer on all the points are YES The both OP adopted standard of practice in proper diagnosis, referral and further management. 14. In the present case the OP-2 -Dr.Poonam is a qualified gynecologist and performed the procedure with all caution and as per the standard of practice. Subsequently she advised for HPE study of material. The complainant did not bring the HPE report; therefore the OP -2 was handicapped and unable to decide further line of treatment without a HPE from the laboratory. 15. Therefore, we rely upon the Bolam Test (Bolam Vs. Frien Hospital Management Committee (1957)1 WLR 582) it was also held that a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with standard practice merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view. Also , the Honle Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab & Anr, (2005) 6 SSC 1 ; III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) had concluded that, a professional may be held liable on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess. 16. Hence, considering the entirety of discussions we are of considered view that there was no negligence by OP-2 in treating the complainant. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision petition. No order as to costs.