Dr. Jatin P. Vaidya, Member — Complainant has filed this complaint against the respondent for alleged negligence and deficiency in medical care and sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 12% interest, cost and any other award that she may be entitled to.

2. The complainant says she is lawfully wedded wife of Vinodbhai, serving as a Section Supervisor in Telegraph Office at Ahmedabad having a minor son and minor daughter. Complainant Manjulaben consulted Dr. Harshidaben (date not mentioned) for her (about 13 week) pregnancy. Dr. Harshidaben advised sonography. Manjulaben approached Dr. Harshidaben with sonography report on 27.5.1995 and 30.5.1995. Doctor advised her medical treatment. She also consented for MTP operation in writing. She was admitted for said operation on 31.5.1993 around 11.00 a.m. for Dilation and Evacuation which according to complainant is other name for MTP operation (page 2). Operation was started at 2.30 p.m. on 31.5.1995. Anaesthesia was conducted by Dr. R.K. Patel. During surgery after one hour of start of operation husband was called in operation theatre and Doctor asked the patient's blood group and demanded husband to provide rare blood group (A-ve) from husband for incessant bleeding. Complainant also alleges rude behaviour of Doctor. Complainant alleges that it is the duty of Doctor to investigate and procure blood for patient and this should have been done in advance which the Doctor did not do. The husband of complainant with difficulty procured blood bottle and supplied it to Doctor for transfusion to his wife. Complainant says that there were Dr. Harshidaben, Dr. R.K. Patel, Dr. Dilipbhai Shah and Dr. Ramanbhai Patel in the operation theatre for this "Normal operation" (page 5) and operation took 4 hours though complainant was told it would take only half an hour. The husband is said to have noted that Dr. Harshidaben was confused and did not know what to do (page 6).

3. After operation, complainant's husband was informed that operation was done and uterus was removed for saving the life of the patient as there was excessive bleeding. Complainant claims that her husband told Dr. Harshidaben that consent was given only for MTP and Hysterectomy — removal of uterus — was done without the consent through pre-operatively after examination and verifying sonography the Doctor did not suggest the possibility of removal of uterus. The complainant also states that the Doctor told them that it was enough that patient survived (page 7). Post operatively patient was kept overnight in operation theatre only and not shifted to ward upto 3 p.m. of 1.6.1995. Bleeding had continued post operatively and needed 4 units of blood post operatively. 25 bottles of glucose were given. Complainant was kept in Hospital for 17 days and was discharged on 16.6.1995.

4. Complainant further states (page 8) that she is from a poor family and because she had two children wanted MTP for third pregnancy but at no stage had entertained the idea of uterus removal thereby becoming permanently unable to conceive, more so because of uncertainty of life. No satisfactory explanation was given to husband's query to Dr. Shah as to her negligent management of case including removal of uterus.

5. It is al leged that in all complainant had to spent about Rs. 3,000/- for medicines. Opponent was required to pay Rs. 1,200/- as operation charges. Complainant further states that the opponent issued a certificate in which it is mentioned that complainant was operated for D & E and that she had to undergo emergency surgery for hysterectomy for bleeding per vagina on 31.5.1995. Certificate also indicates that complainant was admitted for D & E.

6. Complainant's husband alongwith one Mr. K.J. Makwana had approached Dr. Shah to enquire about the chances of future problems mat patient may have following hysterectomy operation. They were assured that patient was safe. It is alleged that since "mouth" of uterus was not removed, complainant is likely t