Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President— Complainant, a minor represented by her father seeks for a direction to pav compensation on the allegation of negligence committed in the surgery conducted by the second opposite party, doctor who was then working in the first opposite party hospital.

2. The allegations in brief are that the complainant aged 15 years and a student of VIII Standard had a height of 136 cm. which for her age since was felt to be less, attracted by the advertisement Exbt. P19 approached the first opposite party hospital in July, 1996 where the second opposite party assured her increase in the height by 10 cms. in six months by surgery and the charge for the same was fixed at Rs. 32,000/-. In view of the same she got herself admitted on 24.7.1998 in the first opposite party hospital and her right leg below the knee was operated on 25.7.1996 and the left leg below the knee was operated on 1.8.1996. Ring fixator was fixed on the legs, the one on the right leg was adjusted from 2.8.1996, and one on the other was adjusted from 10.8.1996, the same had to be adjusted every six hours. The staffs of the hospital were not trained for the said purpose and the father of the complainant was instructed to attend the same as per the instruction of the doctor, and he was attending the same. The fact that the nurse and staff were not equipped to attend the same itself would amount to negligence. On 16.9.1996 she was discharged with instruction that every 15 days X-ray has to be taken and has to be consulted. At the time of discharge the length of the two legs were not the same and hence she could not walk. By September, 1996 pain increased and when she met the second opposite party she informed him as to the same but he consoled her stating that the Ring fixator adjustment must be continued. By the same the feet as well as the leg below the knee got curved. Later when she met him in the same month he instructed her to stop the adjustment of the Ring fixator on the left leg and to continue with respect to the right leg. Afterwards she was required to stop adjustment of the Ring fixator for the right leg also and in April, 1997 the Ring fixators were removed and plaster was applied. But the left leg was short by 1½inches, the second opposite party said that the same was due to the curve in the lower part of the leg. As per the instruction of the second opposite party physiotherapy was being continued. On 17.9.1997 operation was conducted on the left foot and on 1.11.1997 skin grafting was also conducted. Though the different in the length of the leg was brought to the notice of the second opposite party he got wild and instructed to continue of the physiotherapy A physiotherapist was engaged to attend the physiotherapy at her home and the same was intimated to the second opposite party. Since the length of the left leg is shorter, she leans on the left; there was also deformity for the foot. After the operation on 25.7.1996 she was bed-ridden till March, 1998. A home nurse had to be appointed. Every 15 days X-ray had to be taken and the second opposite party was being consulted. The deformity and the disability of the complainant is on account of the negligence in conducting the aforesaid surgery. She had to incur an expense of Rs. 2,43,000/- for the operation and hospital expenses. Apart from the same, she has to incur other expenses for future treatment also, therefore, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the said injury caused to her due to their negligence.

3. In the version by the first opposite party it is contended, the hospital is a reputed one haying several qualified doctors in different specialties and also has qualified staff .The second opposite party is a qualified doctor and the deficiency in service alleged by the complainant is not true or correct; but admits that the complainant was treated in the said hospital, the treatment given to her is borne out by the hospital records and