K.R. Udayabhanu, President— The case of the complainants are as follows:

The second complainant who was a minor then had a small accidental fall on 14.3.1997 at about 12.00 hours while washing cloths at his residence. Due to continuing a mild pain on the right knee joint he was taken to the first opposite party hospital on 16.3.1997. The treatment expenses are paid partly by Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and partly by the 3rd complainant, the father. It is the second opposite party, the Orthopaedic Surgeon who treated the second complainant. There was no visible injury or swelling on the knee and he was capable of walking without external support. Blood and urine tests and X-ray of the knee was taken and no abnormalities were noted. But the second opposite party prescribed arthroscopy to be done. The 3rd complainant was told by the second opposite party doctor that arthroscopy is a minor diagnostic method which takes less than 30 minutes and assured that the patient can go home after the same. He was not informed of the risks inherent or alternative methods and no informed consent was obtained. On 18.3.1997 the second complainant underwent arthroscopy of the right knee join