ORDER

This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against Judgment and Order of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Imphal dated 16.08.2016 passed in Complaint Case No. 6 of 2016, wherein and whereunder the Learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint case after coming to the finding that “the conducting counsel of the complainant has submitted an application for withdrawal in other words determination of his appointment as counsel since the party is not interested in proceeding against the respondents and, therefore, this present complaint case filed against the respondent deserved to be dismissed. The prayer for the conducting counsel of both the parties are justified and reasonable on the ground that the complainant herself is not interested in perusing the case against the respondents.” Learned District Consumer Forum, Imphal had come to the above findings without hearing the present Appellant/Complainant.

2. Heard Mr. Rakesh Thoudam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. M. Tijendra, learned counsel appearing for the Principal respondent No. 1.

3. Before taking up the points called for decision in this appeal, it would be better to appreciate the concise fact leading to the filing of the present appeal. The appellant/complainant was admitted to the Maipakpi Maternity and Child Hospital, North AOC, Imphal (Principal Respondent No. 1) for her pregnancy from 30.10.2015 till discharged on 04.11.2015. During her treatment at the said hospital i.e. Principal respondent No. 1, she had undergone some tests on her person regarding her pregnancy as per the advice of the Doctors of the Principal Respondent No. 1. The appellant/complainant also underwent Ultrasonography test regarding her pregnancy on 30.10.2015, 2.11.2015 and 04.11.2015 as per the advice of the Doctor of the Principal Respondent No. 1. The Principal Respondent No. 1 issued report for the said Ultrasonography tests. As per the report of the Ultrasonography test dated 04.11.2016, Amniotic Fluid Volume was “Scanty (AFI 3 cm). On 04.11.2015, Doctors of the Principal Respondent No. 1 started preparation for Caesarean Section/operation of the appellant/complainant solely on the basis of the said Ultrasonography report dated 04.11.2015. The appellant/complainant and her husband had enquired if there be any possibility of performing the caesarean on completion of full term of pregnancy and also to increase the Amniotic Fluid Volume of the appellant/complainant by medications, but the Doctors of the Principal Respondent No. 1 stated that the Caesarean Section was only the last option to save the unborn child and complicacy of the appellant/complainant. In spite of such repeated request of the appellant/complainant and her husband, Doctors of the Principal Respondent No. 1 without giving any satisfactory reasons handed over the list of medicine to be purchased for her Caesarean Section. As the Doctor of the Principal Respondent No. 1 did not give any satisfactory explanation as to how the Amniotic Fluid Volume of the appellant/complainant had been reduced to AFI3CM within a period of 2 days and also as to why Caesarean Section was only the last resort to save the unborn child and complicacy to the appellant/complainant, the appellant/complainant and her husband decided not to undergo the Caesarean Section. On 04.11.2015, the appellant/complainant was discharged from the hospital of the Principal Respondent No. 1. On 05.11.2015, the appellant/complainant was treated at the Shija Hospitals and Research Institute, Langol, Proforma Respondent No. 2. On the same day i.e. 05.11.2015, Ultrasonography test was done and surprisingly Aminiotic Fluid Volume was found to be 13.2 cm. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant had continued her treatment at the Hospital of Proforma Respondent No. 2, with proper care and treatment till her normal delivery on 24.12.2015, nearly after 2 (two) months from the date of