The main legal point established in the judgment is that the opposite parties were negligent and deficient in service for leaving a foreign body (old retained sponge) in the complainant's abdomen during the caesarean operation, which resulted in pain, suffering, and mental agony for the complainant.

Mr. Jasbir Singh, Member—This is complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties for awarding compensation amount to Rs. 15 lacs to the complainant.

2. The brief facts as per narration giving rise to this complaint are that on 26.12.1997, the complainant along with her husband visited the opposite parties for checkup. Opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant for admission with opposite parties. Opposite party No. 2 also suggested caesarean operation on the ground showing that uterus of the complainant was downward. Accepting the advice of the opposite party No. 2, the complainant got admission in the City Nursing Home and Hospital, Ludhiana of the opposite party No. 2. On the same day itself operation was done and the wounds were sutured by the opposite party No. 2. After about 35 minutes of the operation, the complainant was sent to private room upstairs. It is alleged that the doctor was negligence in sending the complainant upstairs just after 35 minutes of the operation. She was not kept in delivery room. She was not administered any glucose by respondent No. 2. On the other hand a heavy dose of antibiotics was advised and given by the staff of opposite party No. 1. After 2-3 hours of the operation, the complainant felt pains and sufferings. On 27.12.1997, the complainant was advised to take tea, juice and soup, etc. and the opposite party did not prescribe any precaution to the complainant. On 5th day after the operation the complainant developed vomiting but the opposite party No. 2 did not care and told that it was normal after delivery. The condition of the complainant further deteriorated that even a drop of water could not be digested by her. Glucose drip was started by the opposite parties when constant vomiting could not be controlled. Since the day of operation, the complainant felt pain and sufferings and she felt that something had left in the abdomen at the time of operation. On 7.1.1998, the stitches were opened and the complainant was discharged from hospital by the opposite parties. At the time of discharge, the complainant was still suffering from pain in the abdomen. As per narration, on 8.1.1998, some pus formation was felt by the complainant. On 10.1.1998, the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party No. 2, who deputed a Nurse who did some cleaning of the sinus with stick and cotton and reported the matter to the doctor, opposite party No. 2. The complainant was again admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No. 2. Antibiotic was started. The complainant still suffered vomiting every day and the position remained critical upto 15.1.1998. The opposite party No. 2 suggested operation to the complainant. The complainant did not agree for the operation in the absence of her husband. Ultrasound was done. Upto 22.1.1998 continuous discharge of the pus from sinus of the complainant remained. On 22-1.1998, the opposite party No. 2 advised the complainant to consult the General Surgeon to drain the probable sinus. When the complainant suffered continuous discharge of the pain from sinus and she did not feel any relief from the constant pain and sufferings, the discharge was taken from the City Nursing Home, opposite party No. 1. It is alleged that the respondents wrote a letter on 23.1.1998 to the husband of the complainant requesting him to visit opposite party’s hospital and settle the outstanding dues against the complainant. In the letter it was also mentioned that the complainant had left the hospital without informing the opposite parties. The husband of the complainant visited the opposite parties and explained them that there was nothing due against the complainant. The opposite parties vide letter dated 24.1.1998 acknowledged that all dues have been settled. In a period of 18 days more than Rs. 55,000/- were charged by the opposite parties.

3. The complainant as alleged had to remai