Mr. Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi, President —This is an appeal against the order dated 10th July, 1992 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 183 of 1991. That complaint was filed by the present Respondent Smt. R. Lalitha and in it the Opposite Party was M. Jeeva, who is now Appellant before us. Hereinafter the parties wiil be referred by their original nomenclature. By the impugned order the State Commission has awarded Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant plus Rs. 2,000/- which had been paid by the Opposite Party as advance at the time of her admission in the Opposite Party’s hospital.

The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the Opposite Party-M. Jeeva is running a hospital in the name of Jeevan Hospital on Tanjore Road, Triverumbur, which is a suburb of Trichy for the last nearly 4 decades. There is an operation theatre in the said hospital and medical service is rendered round the clock. Trichy town is surrounded by about thisty villages. The Opposite Party made the rural people, including the Complainant, to believe that she is a qualified doctor and the people also believed that she is a doctor. She was rendering medical services to the potential users/consumers, for a consideration which includes prenatal medical services, delivery, after delivery and allied medical services to inpatients and out patients at her above said hospital. The Opposite Party never issued receipts to the consumers for the charges collected by her for the medical services. The Complainant availed of the medical services rendered by the Opposite Party at the prenatal and delivery stages of her first delivery in 1989 when she was blessed with a female child by caesarean operation. During her second pregnancy, she again availed of the prenatal services of the Opposite Party in her hospital. She was asked by Dr. Gnanavel, a Consultant attending the hospital to take a scan. The scan report dated 2nd October, 1990 showed that she was bearing a child of 35 weeks old with normal activities. The Complainant developed labour pains on 21st October, 1990 and went to the said hospital of the Opposite Party at 11 a.m. on that day. The Opposite Party attended to her and admitted her in the hospital as an inpatient and started giving her treatment. The Complainant paid Rs. 2,000/-as advance for the ongoing medical services rendered by the Opposite Party. At about 7 p.m. on the same date, the Opposite Party took the Complainant to delivery ward and adminis- tered two injections on both the hands and two injections on both the hips. At about 10 p.m. again the Opposite Party administered 4 injections on the complainant’s hands and hips. At about 1.00 a.m. on 22nd October, 1990 the Complainant had started heavy bleeding from her uterus. The Opposite Party at once referred the Complainant to the City Hospital, Salai Road, Tiruchirapalli and made available her car for her to that Hospital. The Complainant was admitted in the City Hospital at 1.50 a.m. on 22nd October, 1990 with II Gravida with ruptured uterus as an emergency patient. She underwent an operation and a dead male child was delivered. Her uterus was also removed. She remained as in inpatient at the City Hospital till 29th October, 1990 and spent about Rs. 10,000/- as medical expenses. The grievance of the complainant is that the Opposite Party rendered deficient medical services which caused rupture of her uterus and the delivery of a dead male child. The deficiency in the medical services also lead to the removal of her uterus. She also suffered pain and mental agony and cannot bear child in future. According to her all this is due to the negligence of the Opposite Party in the rendering of medical services. She estimated her loss at a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs and has claimed that amount from the Opposite Party.

2. In the counter the Opposite Party admitted that the building in which the operation is being done, belongs to her and she