Mr. R.S. Awasthi, Member—This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) in Complaint Case No. 516/2002 on 3.3.2004 dismissing the complaint.

2. Complainant has averred in her complaint that she is a 47 years old healthy lady and mother of 2 daughters. She conceived after 13 years after her second daughter was born. She consulted the respondent/O.P. Dr. Sheela Pahalajani at her nursing home namely Mata Laxmi Nursing Home on 4.9.2000 for regular checkup and treatment.

3. On 6.10.2000 she felt that the movement of the foetus (unborn child in the womb) was slower. She immediately complained to the O.P. by going to her nursing home. O.P. examined her and advised taking fruit juice, etc. and lying on her left side. Complainant took the medicines regularly as per advice.

4. On 10.10.2000 she did not feel any movement in the foetus. She complained to the O.P. by going to her nursing home. O.P. examined her and also got her Ultrasonography done. But did not tell her anything about the condition of the foetus. Although the facility of Ultrasonography is available in OP’s nursing home, O.P. asked the complainant to get her Ultrasonography done in Dr. Chandrika Sahu’s clinic the next day.

5. On showing the Ultrasonography report on 11.10.2000, the O.P. told her that the foetus was dead and will be required to be removed by surgery or normal delivery.

6. The complainant was admitted to the OP’s nursing home as on 12.10.2000. The dead foetus was removed on 13.10.2000. It is also stated that she was not given proper attention and was left to the care of a nurse or attendant. The dead foetus thus taken out was healthy and fully developed.

7. Complainant has also alleged that she was given to understand that she might be able to conceive again and was called at the nursing home many times after the incident. Discharge ticket and the sonography report of 10.10.2000 were not given to her in spite of asking for it several times and were told that the papers have been destroyed by termites.

8. It is stated that the sonography report of 20.9.2000 states the age of the foetus as 32 weeks while the age of the foetus in the sonography report is mentioned as 29 weeks, 4 days. It is also stated that she was made to have the pathology tests at her own laboratory.

9. A compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 has been prayed for mental agony suffered by her and her family.

10. Complainant has submitted affidavit of her own as well as that of Dr. Rajrani Khare MS, DGO, Gynaecologist, Balaghat, Arvind Shrivastava, her husband, and the documents as under in support of her contentions:

I. Her own affidavit.

II. Affidavit of Dr. Rajrani Khare.

III. Prescriptions by Dr. Pahlajani (O.P.)—

(i) Date 4.9.2000; (ii) Date 10.9.2000;

(iii) Date 24.9.2000; (iv) Date 8.3.2001.

IV. Pathological Reports—

(i) Blood report dated 9.9.2001 by Mata Laxmi Nursing Home;

(ii) Urine report dated 9.9.2001 by Mata Laxmi Nursing Home;

(iii) Blood report dated 12.10.2000 by Mata Laxmi Nursing Home;

(iv) VSDRL test Report dated 13.9.2000 by Santhana Vikas Lab;

(v) Pathological report for blood dated 6.10.2000 by Mata Laxmi Nursing Home.

V. Ultrasound Investigation Reports—

(i) Sonography report dated 20.9.2000 at Dr. Pahlajani Diagnostic Centre;

(ii) Sonography Report dated 11.10.2000 by Sahu Diagnostic centre.

11. In reply to the complaint, the respondent/O.P. has admitted that she was consulted by the complainant for checkup for pregnancy but it is denied that the complainant consulted the respondent/O.P. on 6.10.2000 and 10.10.2000. It is stated that the complainant was very irregular and negligent in following advice. It is further stated that even on learning of the death of the foetus on 11.10.2000, the complainant approached the O.P. the next day i.e., on 12.10.2000 in the afternoon. She was administered drugs for normal deliv