S. Rajendra Babu, J.—This is an unfortunate case of a woman losing her uterus — vital organ of regeneration — consequent upon an ectopic pregnancy in the cervical canal, which reason is seriously challenged, but denied equally seriously by the other side.

Appellant before us filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to 'the Commission') for compensation on the ground of negligence on the part of respondents in the matter of removal of her uterus. The Commission held that the appellant has not proved negligence on the part of the respondents and dismissed the claim. Hence, this first appeal under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs for loss of uterus with no chance of future pregnancy and mental disturbance or depression leading to disharmony and tension in the family.

2. Facts leading to the said complaint are as follows :

The appellant gave birth to a son on 6.6.1989 after caesarean operation. On or about 3.2.1990 having suspected that she was pregnant again, she and her husband went to Lakshmi Hospital for consultation. The appellant w