Informed consent must cover risks associated with medical procedures; lack of established consent was deemed as professional negligence resulting in liability for damages.

1. The challenge in this First Appeal, under S.19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), by the Complainant, is to the order, dated 7.9.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short the State Commission), in Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2013. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Complaint, holding that there was no inter alia, negligence on the part of Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 3 in the Complaint, while performing colonoscopy procedure on the Complainant.

2. Succinctly put, the facts, giving rise to the present Appeal, as culled out from the Complaint, are as follows:
2.1 In the month of December, 2006, the Complainant, a lady, aged about 55 years, started having stomach pain and disorder in the digestive system (irritation in the stomach / food pipe). She consulted one Dr. Neeraj Nagpal at Hope Gastrointestinal Diagnostic Clinic, Chandigarh. Treatment continued between the period from February, 2007 and April, 2008. Since, she did not get complete relief, she went to M/s Fortis City Centre, Sector - 9, Chandigarh, Opposite Party No. 2 in the Complaint and consulted Dr. Arvind Sahni (for short the Treating Doctor), Opposite Party No. 3, in the Complaint, in the month of May, 2008. Even though the Complainant took treatment for about nine months and underwent several diagnostic tests, including Gastroscopy, she did not get complete relief. Then, she consulted another Specialist, Dr. Sandeep Dhavan at Dhavan's Jeevandeep Nursing Home at Chandigarh, where also she was subjected to several tests, including Video UGI Endoscopy on 29.7.2011 and 3.3.2012. Still she did not get complete relief.
2.2 On 16.5.2012 the Complainant again consulted the Treating Doctor, who advised her to undergo various tests from time - to - time, including blood tests, Histopathology, Endoscopy, Barium tests, food allergy tests. On 20.6.2012, the Treating Doctor advised her full length colonoscopy to rule out colonic malignancy or colitis. MRCP was done on 21.6.2012. According to the Complainant, though she was reluctant to undergo colonoscopy as it was an invasive procedure, performed with the help of a Colonoscope through the anus, but on the assurance of the Treating Doctor that it was a safe procedure and no harm would be caused to her, she agreed for the said test. Colonoscopy procedure was ultimately planned for 4.7.2012.
2.3 As advised on 2.7.2012, the Complainant took Peglec powder on 3.7.2012, to clean the colon. Colonoscopy procedure was conducted on 4.7.2012 by the Treating Doctor. According to the Complainant, on insertion of colonoscope, she felt severe pain and requested the Treating doctor to discontinue the procedure. However, it was not stopped, which resulted in perforation in the colon, resulting in deterioration in her condition. Her abdomen swelled like a football; there was acute pain; and she became unconscious, necessitating her transfer to the ICU. She was put on oxygen and other devices / life - saving drugs.
2.4 The Treating Doctor informed the family members of the Complainant that it was a case of pneumoperitoneum, which required Exploratory Laparotomy in order to save her life. The said operation was conducted in emergency by Dr. J.D. Wig, a Surgeon, Opposite Party No. 4 in the Complaint. As per the operation notes the pain / distension in the abdomen was felt by the Complainant immediately after the Colonoscopy procedure: on opening of the abdomen, a perforation of the size 0.5 x 1.0 c.m. was noticed in the sigmoid colon, resulting in pneumoperitoneum (collection of air in peritoneal ca