ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NCDRC’.] dismissing the appeal of the complainant and allowing the appeal of the doctor and the hospital by holding that no medical negligence was proved. Having examined the evidence, medical records and the report of the ethics committee of the Medical Council of India [hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’. we have concluded that a case of deficiency of service is made out against the doctor and the hospital, Respondents 1 and 2, herein for medical negligence. Allowing the appeal of the complainants, we have directed payment of compensation. We will first refer to the facts leading to this case.

Facts :

3. Facts as stated in the complaint filed before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as ‘the SCDRC’.] are as follows. Appellant 1, the complainant, is a retired Semi-Government employee and his wife Late Mrs. Manjit Kaur, aged 47 years had been working as a Government teacher. Mrs. Manjit Kaur, the patient, developed abdominal pain for which an ultrasound examination was done and it revea