The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to verify the result of a medical procedure before discharging the patient constitutes medical negligence and deficiency in service, regardless of the doctor's good faith, as interpreted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the M.T.P. Act, 1971.

ORDER

M.K. Basu, President - This is a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Mrs. Jhuma Nag (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dr. Amiya Kumar Prodhan (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) on the following allegations. The complainant conceived some time in the month of March, 2002 and contacted the O.P. for consultation and treatment. On 5th March, 2002 the O.P. examined her at his chamber after getting fees from her. He gave a prescription and thereafter on 18th March, 2002 she again went to that chamber of the Doctor who again examined her and issued prescription and advised her to get admitted in the Malda Nursing Home. The O.P. confirmed that she was pregnant and advised her, in the presence of her husband, to get her pregnancy terminated as continuance of the pregnancy would be risky for her life. As per the advice of the Doctor the complainant got herself admitted in Malda Nursing Home and the O.P. performed D.E. on 20th March, 2002 on the complainant under general anesthesia and reported to her husband that the pregnancy had been terminated and he issued discharge certificate on that very day with some advice. He also prescribed some medicines and asked the patient to have check-up after a week. Thereafter she again went to the O.P. 's chamber for a checkup and the O.P. again issued a prescription prescribing certain medicines. But the complainant was not feeling easy and comfortable since after that operation. Therefore, she along with her husband went to Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy Research Centre in the first week of May 2002 and received treatment there and the Doctors there told her that her pregnancy had not been terminated and she was still carrying. Then the complainant had to undergo certain tests and examinations on payment of huge money and ultimately as per the advice of the Doctors there she was operated upon for the second time for termination of her pregnancy and that operation was successfully done. Thus, the O.P. Doctor even after taking a lot of money from her did not provide any relief to her and practically cheated her. She suffered both physically and mentally and the medicines prescribed by the O.P. and taken by her had adverse effect upon her life and the service that was hired by the complainant from him was not actually rendered and thus there was gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and hence this case has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act and the O.P. is liable to pay compensation. She has claimed Rs. 5,00,000 of which Rs. 2,00,000 is on account of loss of child, Rs. 2,00,000 for mental pain, agony and sufferings and Rs. 1,00,000 on account of risk of life taken by her.

2. The O.P.-Dr. Amiya Kumar Prodhan contested the case by filing a written version admitting that an operation called medical termination of pregnancy (M.T.P.) was held by him on the complainant and also that ultimately the pregnancy was not actually terminated but denying other material allegations and contending that he had no deficiency in service in the matter because of the following reasons. He has stated that the complaint is not maintainable in view of the express provisions of the M.T.P. Act, 1971 and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Forum where she filed the case was exceeded by the claim of Rs. 5,00,000 being added with the value of service in terms of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act. It is the further contention of the O.P. that the matter involves complicated questions of law and fact which should not be adjudicated in a consumer Court under its summary trial jurisdiction and it should be referred to a Civil Court and further that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since the other doctors who treated the complainant had not been impleaded. Regarding merits it has been the contention of the O.P. that after the complainant came to him on 5th March, 2002 with a complaint of cessati