ORDER

Dr. (Mrs) Monika Malik, Member—This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant Dr. Neelam Singh is directed against the order dated 03.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.226/2013, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complainant filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the complainant after completion of seven months of her pregnancy approached Civil Hospital, Hazira, Gwalior on 09.09.2011 for regular checkup where the opposite party no.1 Dr. Neelam Singh checked her and advised for blood test and ultrasonography. On getting ultrasound done, the expected date of delivery of child was told to her as 21.10.2011. Again on 22.09.2011 when she consulted the opposite party no.1-doctor she was told that there will be normal delivery. The doctor told her she that will do thorough checkup of her in Vinayak Hospital & Research Centre and therefore she went to aforesaid hospital on 23.09.2011 where the opposite party no.1-doctor after checkup gave her medical prescription. On advice of opposite party no.1-doctor, she got her checkup done in Sai Manglam Nursing Home Hospital, Tansen Road, Gwalior on 26.09.2011. It is submitted by the complainant that the opposite party no.1-doctor is doing private practice in the said hospital which belongs to Dr. Anli Kushwanshi. She also paid consultation fee of Rs.200/- to the opposite party no.1-doctor.

3. It is further submitted by the complainant that on 11.10.2011, the opposite party no.1-doctor telephonically at around 8 am called her for checkup in opposite party no.2-hospital. She was not having any pain or discomfort but the opposite party no.1 doctor prescribed gel Cerviprime on a paper which is used for the purpose of increasing pain. When the complainant’s father told the doctor that due date has not yet come, the doctor told him that she knows more regarding when the delivery is going to happen. The opposite party no.2-doctor was also present there. It is alleged by the complainant that despite the fact that the delivery date was on 21.10.2011 the opposite party no.1-doctor delivered the child by operation on 11.10.2011 for which she paid Rs.25,000/- to the opposite parties, of which no receipt was given. It is alleged by the complainant that for want of money, the opposite party doctors did delivery, without any necessity for the same and finally discharged her on 14.10.2011.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties by performing surgery negligently shifted the right ovary to left side due to which she had stomachache but the opposite party no.1-doctor did not attend to the same. On 01.09.2012 when she consulted Dr. Achal Gupta, she was told that there is pus formation and due to accumulation of blood, there is formation of tumor. Dr. Achal Gupta after performing surgery drained out the pus and the dirty blood. It is alleged that ovarian cancer was detected for which she took treatment in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and spent Rs.8,00,000/- in her treatment. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking financial losses of Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony, Rs.3,00,000/- as expenses for the future and Rs.7,500/- as costs of litigation, therefore a total sum of Rs.14,07,500/-.

5. The opposite party no.1-doctor in reply before the District Commission relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Martin F., D’souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq 2009 (3) SCC 1 took a preliminary objection that no medical expert opinion was obtained, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the complainant’s father K. G. Nathani has also complained to the Administrative Officers but did not produce the original prescription dat