IMPORTANT POINT
Operation must be undergone only after observing necessary safeguards.

Surjit Singh (Retd.), President— Appellants are aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2010, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, field by them against the respondents has been dismissed.

2 Appellants are the husband and the children of deceased Smt. Sunita Devi, who was subjected to medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) at the clinic of respondent No. 1, on 07.04.2002, and as a result of some complication, arising because of the said MTP, she died on the next following day at Military Hospital, No. 1. According to the appellants, cause of the death of said Sunita Devi was negligent handling of the procedure by the doctors of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 has been impleaded because respondent No. 1 had insured itself with the said respondent for indemnification in the event of its being held liable to pay any claim for professional negligence.

3. Deceased Sunita Devi, had visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 24th March, 2002, with the complaint that she had not menstruated since expected date for sufficiently long time. Pregnancy test was conducted and the report was negative. She did not menstruate for another 10-15 days. She again visited the clinic of respondent No. 1 on 07.04.2002 and after the test it was found that she was carrying pregnancy of six weeks. She was advised medical termination of pregnancy, in case she did not want another child. She was interested in termination of pregnancy. She was asked if the procedure be carried out immediately. She and her husband, i.e. appellant B.S. Yaday, who was accompanying her, agreed for immediate procedure. On being asked, the lady and appellant B.S. Yaday told the doctors that the lady had taken tea around 8.00. So, the doctors of respondent No. 1, advised them to wait till 3 p.m. for the procedure and in the meanwhile, not to eat or drink anything.

4. According to the appellants, Sunita Devi was taken to the operation theatre at 3.00 p.m. Procedure was done and at 3.30 p.m. she was shifted to recovery room. At 4 p.m. or within half an hour, it was noticed that she had become apneic (breathless). She was intubated and manually ventilated and shifted to operation theatre, where suction was done. Secretions from her lungs had appeared in the endo-tracheal tube. Bilateral crepitations from her lungs were also noticed. Her endo-tracheal tube was repeatedly suctioned. Life saving drugs was injected. By 4.45 p.m., she started breathing. Her husband, who happened to be a male nurse in the Army, was explained that the lady was having grave prognosis, who then shifted her to the Military Hospital at Yol. She was admitted in the said Hospital and was given treatment, but on the next following day around 6.30 in the evening, she died.

5. At the Military Hospital, Yol, it was diagnosed that she was having hypoxic ischacemic encephalopathy with Pulmonary Oedma.

6. Her dead body was subjected to postmortem examination at Dr. Rajindra Prasad Govt. Hospital & Medical College, Tanda on 09.04.2002, and it was opined that the death took place due to shock as a result of MTP operation. As per postmortem report, endo-metrium of uterus showed raw surface and bleeding at places. The uterus was not perforated. On 08.04.2002, even before Sunita Devi had died, report was lodged with the Police, who registered a case, under Section 314 I.P.C., vide Annexure C-8.

7. Appellants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 0l.05.2004, seeking award of damages to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs, on the allegation that respondent No. 1 had been negligent in conducting the procedure. Alongwith complaint, an application for condoning delay was also moved. Delay was condoned and complaint entertained.

8. Respondents filed separate replies to contest the complaint. Respondent No. 1 denied that the procedure conducted by them was the cause of the deat