The order challenged in this appeal, was passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CD No.19 of 1997. As seen from the record, on 11.11.1996 deceased Anusaya Pradhan, daughter of the Complainant met OP-1/Dr. Sujata Mohanti for termination of her pregnancy. After check up, she was advised to undergo Suction Evacuation and Laproscopic Sterilization. It was performed on the same day. At about 1.30 in the afternoon, the Complainant was informed that the patient had died on the operation table, when her heart could not be revived. 2. The case of the complaint before the State Commission was that the OPs had failed to take due care and precaution before the operation. There was wrong handling of the instruments for sterilization of the deceased, leading to heavy internal bleeding and death. According to the death certificate, the young lady had died due to DIC (Disseminated Intravascular Coagulopathy). 3. The State Commission, constituted a Medical Expert Team on 15.3.2005, who filed their report on 22.10.2005. Considering the evidence of the OPs and the report of the expert Team, the State Commission came to a conclusion that the patient had died due to her condition of DIC and not due to wrong handling of instruments. The Complainant had failed to establish the allegation of medical negligence against the OPs. The State Commission therefore, dismissed the complaint. 4. The appeal against the above order was admitted on 22.8.2007 and simultaneously, Mr. Santosh Paul, Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae, for presentation of the case on behalf of the appellant/complainant. We have perused the record of a case and heard the two counsels. Inter alia, the main ground of challenge against the impugned order is that the appellant/complainant did not have a proper opportunity to be heard with reference to the report of the medical expert team, relied upon by the State Commission. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was also received from the appellant/complainant to call for the records of the State Commission. The same have been obtained and perused. It is seen from these records that on 13.5.2005, the Commission had received a written request from the complainant to refer the matter to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), or any other MedicalCollege from Kolkatta, Hyderabad or Jabalpur for constitution of an expert team. On 19.5.2005, the Commission has noted that the opposite party has no objection and therefore directed to refer the matter to the head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AIIMS, New Delhi. 6. Three months later, the proceedings of 25.8.2005 show that the commission has taken note of absence of response from the AIIMS, New Delhi and observed— “We have perused the letter dated 1.4.2005 written by Dr Ashok Kumar Behera, Professor and Head of the Department, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, M.K.C.G. Medical College and hospital to the Secretary of this Commission and are of the view that there is no embargo on his part to assist this Commission by rendering his opinion as sought for. Since Prof and Head of the Department S.C.B Medical College Hospital is also be one of the members of the committee, who has consented to give his opinion we accordingly constitute the committee with HODs of both the Medical Colleges and request them to render their opinion after due consideration by 15th of October 2005.” 7. On 31.10.2005, the Commission has directed that the expert report should be shared with the parties and posted the matter for 10.11.2005. On that day, the Commission has recorded— “Sri Samal says that he has no further instructions on behalf of the petitioner. None appears for the petitioner”. 8. The matter was reserved for orders, which were pronounced, ten months later, on 25.8.2006. These facts are admitted by the appellant in para 3(h) of the Memorandum of Appeal, when he says— “On 10.11.2005 as the counsel of the complainant reported no instruction (for the reasons best known to him), the Learned Commission had finally heard the counsel appearing for the opposite parties/respondents exparte and the order was reserved". 9. We are therefore, unable to accept the plea of the appellant/complainant that no opportunity was given to him to make his submission in the matter. 10. The appellant has also raised certain questions which, according to him, needed to be answered by the expert panel. The proceedings of the State Commission, detailed above, clearly show that he had full opportunity to address them to the expert team, when the State Commission decided on 25.8.2005 to seek their report and to give them time till 15.10.2005 to submit the same. It is not the case of the appellant that he was prevented from addressing these questions to the expert committee. Therefore, this plea cannot be accepted at this stage. 11. We therefore, reach an inescapable conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish his allegation of medical negligence. We also do not find any error in the impugned order, in relation to appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for want of merit and the order of the State Commission confirmed. The parties to bear their own costs. | 
