P.D. Shenoy, Member—Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 2.11.2001, the complainant has filed this appeal before us. The operative portion of the State Commission’s order reads as follows:

“On the basis of facts recorded by us and the evidence produced before us by the respective parties, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that there is nothing to establish that the surgery performed on the complainant by opposite party No.1, was a failure or that it damaged the condition of the complainant due to a lack of reasonable care judging from the established standards of medical profession at the time it was performed. Even from the opinions of experts produced by the complainant, this does not become obvious.

Hence there is no satisfactory evidence before us of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 either in performing the Surgery or in rendering adequate care and treatment during the post operative period. We are of the view that there is no liability whatsoever on the part of opposite party No. 2 for any damages or compensation on any count whatsoever.

The complainant