This revision petition has been filed by Dr. Shashi Sehgal against the order of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no.450 of 2004. In the impugned order, the appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Sonepat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had been dismissed for want of merit. The revision petition has thus been filed against concurrent orders of State as well as District fora. 2. The petition itself has been filed with a delay of 26 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is mentioned that contentions of the petitioner had remained unheard before the State Commission. This has entirely been attributed to the ‘extreme negligence’ of the advocate representing the revision petitioner before the State Commission. Even the delay in filing the revision petition before this Commission, has been attributed to the failure of the counsel in keeping the petitioner informed of the developments before the State Commission. We do not consider this as a sufficient explanation or justification of the delay. 3. The State Commission has clearly recorded that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant (present revision petitioner). Having thus, failed to utilize the opportunity of being heard by the State Commission in her appeal, the revision petitioner now seeks to challenge most of the findings of facts reached by the fora below. Therefore, it needs to be observed at this stage itself that the scope of the present proceedings is a limited one. Under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the power of this Commission to interfere with the impugned order is limited only to the extent the State Commission is found to ‘have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity’. 4. We have carefully examined the records and heard Ms. Roohi Kohli Handoo, Advocate, for the petitioner. In very brief, the complaint of medical negligence concerns the case of a young woman, who was admitted for delivery in Navjeevan Hospital on 4.8.2000. She was discharged the same day after birth of a male child. She was readmitted on 9.8.2000 when her condition had deteriorated and remained under treatment in OP hospital till her discharge on next day, when she had become unconscious. Further investigations in two other hospitals showed that she was suffering from septicemia, due to presence of retained product of conception in uterine cavity. On 12.8.2000 in a surgical operation at Jaipur Golden Hospital at Delhi, pieces of placenta and some other products were removed from her uterine cavity. She died on 15.8.2000 at Delhi. 5. As already noted, the District Forum (by a majority decision) and the State Commission have both held that it was a clear case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP/ revision petitioner. The State Commission has noted that according to the doctor who operated upon the patient, the cause of death was septicemia and has observed in the impugned order that— “In the instant case the opposite party in her affidavit herself has admitted that the patient was suffering from ‘Mind Fever’ (Meningo encephalitis or Cavernous sinus thrombosis). Learned counsel appearing for the complainant before the District Forum produced the Medical Reference Book (Medicine by Davidson) wherein it has been shown that if there will be retained product of Conception, it will lead to Septicaemia which in turn will effect the Metastatic focci of infection, examally brain, which will cause meningitis….. and finally leading to septic shock, which would be sufficient enough to make the patient dead.” 6. On the above point, the revision petitioner has taken conflicting stand in different parts of her petition before this Commission. In para 7 (G) the petition says:- “That there was no clinical or radiological evidence of any retained products of conception, when the patient was briefly with the petitioner on 9.8.2012.” But in para 7 (H) it is conceded that Dr. Anu Nayyar, in her ultrasound examination of the patient at Jaipur Golden Hospital, had found evidence of presence of retained products of conception in the utrine cavity. Despite this, in a subsequent para the petition alleges that the District Forum and the State Commission have failed to appreciate that the fact of retained products of conception has not been convincingly proved. 7. Another ground raised in the revision petition is that the State Commission has ignored the expert evidence of Dr. Pankaj Aneja. We find from the records that Dr. Aneja of Jaipur Golden Hospital was examined as a witness on behalf of the Complainant. It is seen from the proceedings of the fora below that Dr. Aneja stated in his evidence that the patient had died due to septicemia. It is also mentioned in the death summary, which was reportedly prepared by Dr. Aneja. We therefore do not agree with the above contention. 8. In view of the details examined above, we do not find any grounds in the revision petition and the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is consequently, dismissed for want of merit, with no order as to costs. | 
