Mr. V.N. Mishra, Member—The present appeal is directed against the order dated 17.11.1995 passed by District Forum, West Champaran, Bettiah directing the appellant-opposite party for his negligence to pay a sum of Rs. 53,685/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost to the complainant-respondent.

2. The facts of the complaint case in brief are that the complainant, Md. Abas Ansari’s wife had complaint of pain in the abdomen who consulted the opposite party after paying his consultation fee of Rs. 35/-. He informed the complainant that there is inflamation in the uterus of his wife which needs to be removed. On his proposal for going to Patna or Darbhanga for treatment the opposite party advised him to get the operation done at Bettiah which will be cheaper. He charged Rs. 1,200/- for surgical operation and Rs. 1,000/- for medicines and performed the operation on 30.4.1994. His wife after operation remained under the care of the opposite party for ten days when he had to pay Rs. 20/- per day for room rent. Besides that he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4,000/- over injection, medicine etc. after the operation. After discharge of the patient by the opposite party he spent Rs. 2,000/- over purchase of medicine prescribed by the opposite party. The tube from the urinary bladder was removed after ten days and the patient was discharged. But the patient’s problem of frequent urination kept continuing. The patient kept on consulting the opposite party who was prescribing medicines and was charging Rs. 35/- every month with no redressal. Finding no improvement in the condition of the patient, the complainant asked the opposite party if the treatment of the patient be not within his control, he may refer the patient to some doctor at Patna or Darbhanga for better treatment. On his insistence the patient was referred to Dr. Mira Choudhary who after examination gave the opinion that the patient needs to be taken to Patna for proper treatment. The treatment at Bettiah was not possible as some hole had occurred in the urinary bladder while removing uterus. It is a case of V.V.F. which requires major operation. The prescription of Dr. Mira Choudhary was shown to the opposite party who talked to Dr. Choudhary on phone for a long time. Thereafter he referred the patient to Patna. The doctor at Patna felt that removal of the tube from the urinary bladder just after ten days was the reason for the complication. It should have been removed after 20 days. He had to spend a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on treatment and Rs. 15,000/- on transport cost. He suffered a loss of Rs. 53,685/- in total on various counts because of negligence shown by the opposite party. He, therefore, prayed that the opposite party may be directed to pay the above amount to him.

3. The opposite party in his written version has admitted that he had examined the patient and had advised for removal of the uterus after necessary investigation. He indicated his fees for operation and denied having suggested that the operation at Bettiah would be cheaper. He also denied having charged Rs. 1,000/- for medicines. He only prescribed medicines which were purchased by the attendant of the patient. The operation was successfully performed. While removing uterus, a lump was observed in the urinary bladder which was also removed. The patient remained under his care for 10 days. The patient had no problem at all. She had no complaint when she was discharged after ten days. She had problem of leakage of urine after sometime. He prescribed medicines related to tumour. Later on she informed the opposite party that urine was leaking through the birth canal. But she refused to get the birth canal inspected by a male doctor. She was, therefore, referred to a lady doctor, Dr. Mira Choudhary who after examination of the patient identified the ailment as V.V.F. This is a known complication after such operation and it does not indicate any deficiency in service. The opposite party reiterated that the pa