MAMTA SRIDHAR IYER vs KUNJANNAM POULOSE

-THIS complaint has been filed by the complainants against O. P. doctor alleging medical negligence case of the complainant in nutshell may be stated as under: complainants are husband and wife residing at 405, 4th Floor, Amardeep Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai. O. P. No. 1 is Dr. Kunjannam Poulose, residing at Philomen House, 12th Road, Chembur, Mumbai and O. P. No. 2 is the Insurance Company. According to complainants, O. P. No. 1 is doctor having qualification of M. B. B. S. She is having nursing home and dispensary at Chembur and Ghatkopar respectively. The complainants alleged that O. P. No. 1 is only conversant with normal deliveries and does not conduct medical termination of pregnancies. Their main allegation is that she had conducted unauthorized operation on complainant No. 1 and conducted medical termination of pregnancy on 10. 7. 1990 though O. P. No. 1 was 70 years old and her hand was bound to shake and quiver. This resulted in the perforation of uterus and also perforation of large intestine and without consent of Complainant No. 1 and 2, she conducted medical termination of pregnancy and complainants as such lost their child in the womb at the hands of O. P. No. 1 due to negligence. O. P. No. 2 is the Insurance Company who had given policy of professional indemnity to the O. P. No. 1 and as such O. P. No. 2 is bound to compensate complainants in the case of medical negligence of O. P. No. 1. Complainants had sent letter to O. P. No. 1 dated 17. 3. 1991. O. P. No. 1 sent reply in which she had admitted to have received letter from complainant dated 17. 3. 1991 and she informed that she was covered under doctor''s indemnity insurance policy and she had forwarded complainant''s letter to New India Assurance Company for necessary action. According to complainants there is no whisper in the letter sent by O. P. No. 1 that she was not negligent in any matter as alleged. Hence according to complainants this amount to admission on the part of O. P. No. 1.

COMPLAINANTS further says that O. P. No. 1 was negligent since consent of the complainants had not been obtained either for carrying out medical termination of pregnancy and for administering anaesthesia by Mr. Patel which amounts to an unauthorized operation conducted by O. P. No. 1. According to complainants this amount to assault on complainant No. 1. It is further averred by the complainants that due to lack of experience of O. P. No. 1, there was uterus perforation along with a perforation of large intestine which resulted into grave physical harm and injury caused to complainant No. 1 and complainants ultimately lost their child in the process. Because of uterine perforation and perforation of intestine complainant No. 1 was subjected to repeated surgery due to gross negligence of O. P. No. 1. She was also subjected to a caesarean section of lower segment, thus rendering her incapable of having normal pregnancy hereafter. The complainant further pleaded that she was administered anaesthesia without consent of either of the complainants. O. P. No. 1 relied upon totally clinical findings instead of doing sonography. They pleaded that at Rajawadi Hospital, a colostomy operation was performed on the large intestine and since first colostomy leaked, second colostomy had to be performed. At Rajawadi Hospital at the time of colostomy complainant No. 1 was just 26 years old and she was required to go every now and then for dressing of the wound and post-operational investigations. She had to undergone another operation at Kamdar Nursing Home which operation also initially failed. Hence another operation for closure of colostomy was performed. A letter was sent by complainant No. 2 to O. P. No. 1 on 15. 8. 1990 in which he requested O. P. No. 1 to share the burden of Rs. 70,000 which he was required to spend because of mistake committed by O. P. No. 1. Another letter on 15. 2. 1991 was also sent by complainant No. 1 to O. P. No. 1 followed by two other letters of similar complaints. O. P. No. 1 did not deny allegations made by the complainants. Thus those facts are deemed to have been admitted by O. P. No. 1.

It is the case of the complainants that complainant No. 1 had not given her consent for medical termination of pregnancy and without her consent the same was done by O. P. No. 1 and while doing so she caused a uterine perforation and perforation to large intestine. To rectify or seal those perforations complainant No. 1 had to undergo 3-4 further operations in Rajawadi Hosptial and Kamdar Nursing Home. Thus she suffered mental agony and physical pain and lot of expenses because of negligence of O. P. No. 1 and the complainants lost their child forever and lost the chance of having normal delivery.

COMPLAINANTS therefore alleged that O. P. No. 1 is guilty of deficiency in service and she knew that she had committed blunder in terminating pregnancy of complainant No. 1 without her consent, in administering anaesthesia without her consent and also in causing perforations to her uterus and large intestine while terminating the pregnancy of complainant No. 1 and it is for this reason the complainant have alleged that O. P. No. 1 did not take single paisa from the complainants still complainants have averred that because of deficiency in service they suffered heavily in terms of physical pain, mental agony and subsequent remedial operations got performed at various hospitals and therefore O. P. No. 1 is squarely liable for the initial medical negligence exhibited by her while terminating pregnancy of complainant No. 1 without her consent and therefore complainants claimed that they are entitled in law to claim compensation of Rs. 6 lakh jointly and severally from O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from 10. 7. 1990 till realization of the entire amount. Complainants have filed documentary evidence and affidavit in support of their case.

O. P. No. 1 filed written statement and denied negligence or mistake committed by her. According to her whatever she did in the case of Mrs. Mamta Iyer was most appropriate medical management and treatment given to her since she was brought in her hospital having professed bleeding during pregnancy and she was in the state of spontaneous loss of pregnancy. She denied that she had done D. and C. negligently as alleged. Since there was bleeding, it was utterly necessary to stop bleeding and to undergo D. and C. procedure by evacuating the already lost conception materials or contents from uterus to save the life of pregnant woman herself. She asserted in cases of D. and C. , perforation of uterus is most natural and probable. There was no perforation in intestine as a matter of fact. She pleaded that complainant is attempting to extract monies from her and for that purpose Mr. Iyer wrote many letters and gave telephonic threats. She asserted that it was a treatment of natural occurrence of spontaneous loss of pregnancy. She asserted that she had not done medical termination of pregnancy without consent of Mrs. Iyer as has been falsely asserted by both the complainants. She claimed that this was not a M. T. P. case at all. It was a case of spontaneous loss of pregnancy with professed bleeding and spontaneous loss of pregnancy is largely due to chromosomal abnormalities apart from other physiological factors and is primarily Quality Control Mechanism for screening and rejecting abnormal pregnancies. She pleaded true facts in para 4 of her reply that on 5. 6. 1990, Mrs. Mamta Iyer visited her clinic. She had history loop insertion and being taken out at some other place. She had been advised vitamin tablets and was asked to come after a month. On 8. 7. 1990, she visited her clinic with her husband. On examination, O. P. found that she had a bleeding per vagina. Provisional diagnosis of "threatened abortion" was done. Her husband was not present. He had gone out of Mumbai and she had no funds but since O. P. No. 1 was knowing her in the context of threatened spontaneous loss of pregnancy, she out of compassion admitted Mrs. Iyer at her request in her nursing home free of charge. She was given requisite medicine and necessary rest. On 9. 7. 1990, tests for confirming pregnancy were done. Her urine test was positive indicating pregnancy. She tried to save the pregnancy. Mrs. Iyer was given clinical treatment and medicines and asked to take complete rest in the hospital itself. In the night of 9. 7. 1990, she complained that bleeding persisted and increased with pain in the lower abdomen. As such it was clear that process of spontaneous loss of pregnancy had started. So, in good faith and in the best interest of Mrs. Mamta Iyer, she decided to follow D. and C. procedure and told Mrs. Iyer accordingly. She appraised of obstetric problem to Mrs. Iyer and told that process of loss of pregnancy had to be completed to avert any injury to Mrs. Iyer and to relieve her of the situation and pain. She willingly consented. On 10. 7. 1990, at 5. 00 a. m. she examined Mrs. Iyer. The cervix had then opened and products of conception were partly dislodged. It was diagnosed as ''inevitable abortion'' which needed emergent dilatation and curettage to save the patient from bleeding to grave consequence like death etc. So she commenced D. and C. procedure and took all precautionary safety measures. Her B. P. and pulse was checked. Atrophin injection was given and general anaesthesia was given by Dr. N. P. Patel. At 6. 30 a. m. cervix was caught which was already opened. The uterine sound was inserted and she started to evacuate the contents of conception from the uterus. She used blunt curette, check curettage was also done as a precaution. A pitocin drip was inserted and blood was collected. Urine was also collected for routine study. She further pleaded that in the case of spontaneous abortions like that of Mrs. Iyer, clinical examinations is more reliable than X-ray or sonography which causes effects of radiation. The natural dilatation of cervix can best be identified by an intro-vaginal digital examination. On 10. 7. 1990 morning, bleeding was so heavy that urgent thing was required to be done to save the patient from further bleeding to death. This was an emergency D. and C. where immediate management of patient was of prime importance rather than wasting time in investigation like X-ray, sonography etc. She asserted that she had to carry out emergency D. and C. as this is the established procedure followed in all hospitals in Mumbai when there is emergency situation like that of Mrs. Iyer. This was necessary to evacuate products of conception which were partly dislodged and were partly present in the cervical canal and there was professed bleeding. She further pleaded that after a while when she was doing D. and C. procedure she felt that something was protruding accidentally which was something like tubular elastic structure. She suspected that it was something like viscera and not conception products. Probable perforation of uterus which is possible in such case was diagnosed. But there was no alleged perforation of intestine. Subsequently in Rajawadi Hospital Exploratory Laprotomy was done in which only a tear or scratch on intestine was detected. Before shifting her to Rajawadi Hospital, she stopped D. and C. procedure and started I. V. fluids with injection Cortisone. Mrs. Iyer''s B. P. was 100/80 and pulse was 70/m. She telephoned and called Dr. A. V. Sathe, a Gynaecologist attached to her nursing home. After examining the patient, he confirmed her diagnosis. He then contacted Dr. Manoj Kamdar, Honorary Surgeon at Rajawadi Municipal Hospital, Ghatkopar who agreed to attend the case of Mrs. Mamta Iyer on her admission in Rajawadi Municipal Hosptal. She then explained to Mrs. Iyer and her relatives about whole things. She was fully conscious and talking to her nurse. Effect of anaesthesia had withered off. She agreed to get admitted in Rajawadi Municipal Hosptal. A pitocin drip was immediately inserted and Mrs. Iyer was shifted in ambulance with her nurse fitted with T. V. set and shifted to Rajawadi Hospital for Exploratory Laparotomy. In Rajawadi Hospital, Dr. Manoj Kamdar and other expert doctors with better equipments, better operation theatres were available and she was admitted in that hospital immediately. She pleaded that as per her information, within a week Mrs. Iyer was discharged since she was found all right and fit. Later on she became pregnant and underwent L. S. C. S.

SHE further pleaded that complainant''s husband had manipulated certain certificates to suit his purpose. She asserted that she was in the medical practice for 45 years as Gynaecologist and Obstetrician and she had performed deliveries of 7,000 cases and about 500 to 700 dilatation and curettage including cases of handling of spontaneous abortions. She denied the allegation of complainant that, on 8. 7. 1990, since she was 70 years old she was physically infirm and her hands were shivering due to infirmity. She says that in 1990 she was 64 years old and not 70 as alleged. She asserted that she was fully capable, competent and experienced Gynaecologist to handle cases of threatened or spontaneous pregnancies and to conduct D. and C. procedure which she adopted in the case of Mrs. Iyer. She denied that she was ever negligent in conducting D. and C. procedure. In doing so there was uterine perforation but not intestinal perforation as alleged. She asserted that she had not carried out medical termination of pregnancy as alleged by the complainants but she had followed D. and C. procedure to save the life of Mrs. Iyer whose case was of threatened abortion or spontaneous abortion and this was done after taking oral consent of Mrs. Iyer. She had done D. and C. not for M. T. P. but for completing the incomplete spontaneous inevitable loss of pregnancy. So no written consent was necessary as she was not resorting to medical termination of pregnancy and such D. and C. procedure is beyond the purview of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. She had taken all the precautions and safety measures while performing D. and C. on Mrs. Iyer. She asserted that while doing D. and C. procedure despite due care and skill employed by the surgeon, there can be perforation of any part of uterus or accidental perforation or tear or scratching of muscular layer of intestine as a natural consequence. This can happen on account of surgical instruments or by changing state of condition of uterine wall and cavity or due to indeterminate and immeasurable factors of resistant level or resistant capacity of uterine wall or the factor that surgeon concentrated only on removal of incomplete evacuation of abortion that had set in and therefore she can not be held guilty of negligence only because there was uterine perforation while performing D. and C. procedure on Mrs. Iyer. D. and C. procedure was employed by her for completing incomplete process of spontaneous loss of pregnancy and while doing so perforation occurring to uterine wall was accidental but most probable occurrence beyond her control. So one should not jump to the conclusion that she was negligent in doing D. and C. procedure on Mrs. Iyer. She denied complainants, suffered mental agony, physical pain due to the faulty treatment given be her. She pleaded that complaint should be dismissed being without any substance.

SHE has filed this reply on affidavit and she had filed number of documents in support of her defence. She filed affidavit of Mr. Mahindra Patel, Gynaecologist and Obstetrician and also affidavit of Dr. Prabhakar Rao in support of her defence. She also filed and relied upon some extracts from text books in support of her case. She also filed affidavits of Dr. Manoj Kamdar, Surgeon, Dr. Nalinkant Patel, Anaesthesist and Dr. Anuradha Sathe, Gynaecologist. We heard submissions of Mrs. Geeta Handa Khanuja for the complainants and Dr. M. S. Kamath, Consumer Activist for the O. P. No. 1. None appeared for O. P. No. 2. We have carefully gone through the affidavits filed by both the parties and affidavits of some expert witnesses filed on behalf of O. P. No. 1. Now following issues arise for our consideration. The issues and our finding thereon are as under: issues: 1. Whether the complaint as filed initially by husband of the complainant No. 1 but later on amended to add complainant No. 1 with her husband (original complainant) is maintainable in law? - Yes 2. Whether complainants can be said to be a ''consumers'' vis-a-vis O. P. No. 1 who rendered free services to Mrs. Mamta Iyer, complainant No. 1 on 10. 7. 1990? - No 3. Whether even in rendering free service O. P. No. 1 was deficient in service or failed to take due and reasonable care or did not exhibit professed skill as Gyanecologist while treating Mrs. Mamta Iyer? - No 4. Whether consent in writing was necessary before O. P. No. 1 decided to perform D. and C. procedure to save life of the complainant No. 1 as it was the case of threatened spontaneous abortions and she was simply assisting the process of evacuation of parts of conception which had naturally come out per vagina and had been lodged in vaginal canal? - No 5. What order if any? - Complaint stands dismissed. Reasons:

Issue No. 1 : Initially, the complaint was filed by Mr. Sridhar Iyer, husband of Mrs. Mamta Iyer who underwent D. and C. procedure at hands of O. P. No. 1 doctor on 10. 7. 1990 in her nursing home at Chembur. The objection was taken as to maintainability of this complaint by O. P. No. 1. Thereafter from the record it appears that this Commission permitted complainant to add his wife as co-complainant and thereafter Mrs. Mamta Iyer was added as complainant No. 1 and Mr. Sridhar Iyer was styled as complainant No. 2 and fresh set of complaints with amended complaint was furnished to the Commission and to the opposite parties. So as the things stand we are deciding complaint in which complainant No. 1 Mrs. Mamta Iyer and complainant No. 2 is her husband and we are of the view that the complaint as filed is maintainable in law. The amendment was permitted by this Commission. So, we are of the considered view that complaint as filed by both the husband and wife against O. P. Nos. 1 and 2 is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act and objection taken in this behalf must be held to be without any substance. The grievance of the complainants who are husband and wife is against O. P. No. 1 alleging that she had terminated pregnancy of complainant No. 1 without her consent and she violated provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. So aggrieved party in the light of allegations made is both husband and wife and not wife in particular or her husband individually. Therefore the joint complaint as filed by the complainants is tenable in law. As such we record our finding on issue No. 1 in the affirmative.

ISSUE No. 2 : It is an admitted fact that neither of the complainants have paid a single paisa to the O. P. No. 1 doctor. As has been mentioned in her written statement and affidavit complainant No. 1 came to nursing home of O. P. No. 1 Dr. Kunjannam Poulose on 5. 6. 1990 with history of loop insertion and being taken out at some other place. She was advised tablets and vitamins and asked to come after one month. She again approached O. P. No. 1 on 8. 7. 1990 with a complaint of bleeding per vagina. There was provisional diagnosis of threatened abortion and commencement of process of spontaneous and threatened loss of pregnancy. Her husband was not in Mumbai. He had gone out of station. But since complainant No. 1 had earlier come for delivery at O. P. No. 1''s nursing home, out of compassion without taking any single rupee from the complainant Nos. 1 and 2, to save the life of patient in view of commencement of spontaneous and threatened loss of pregnancy, O. P. No. 1 admitted her at her request in her nursing home free of charge and she was given requisite and necessary rest and medicine. Then on 9. 7. 1990, confirming tests for pregnancy were done. There was pregnancy and patient was in the state of spontaneous loss of pregnancy and was having profused bleeding. Even on the night of 9. 7. 1990, patient complained of persistent bleeding and there was increased pain in lower abdomen. As such Dr. Poulose, O. P. No. 1 rightly thought that the process of spontaneous loss of pregnancy had started. So in good faith in the best interest of Mrs. Mamta Iyer, she decided to decided to follow D. and C. procedure and told Mrs. Iyer accordingly. There was no charging of any fee. There was no promise given by Mrs. Mamta Iyer to O. P. No. 1 that she would pay later on for the services rendered by O. P. No. 1 and therefore this was a clear-cut case of extending helping hand gratuitously to a needy patient who needed immediate D. and C. procedure to save her life and to stop her pain and bleeding which continued unabated till that moment. So the services rendered by O. P. No. 1 was ex gratia and not for payment of fees or promise of deferred payment. When this is so, complainants can be said to be having no locus standi to file consumer complaint for the deficiency in service on the part of O. P. No. 1. Thus this Commission holds that complainant No. 1 had been treated by O. P. No. 1 doctor free of cost out of previous acquaintance and just to give immediate help to the patient and without payment of fees whatsoever or even without promise to pay fees at the later stage and therefore such persons cannot file consumer complaint against O. P. No. 1 alleging deficiency in service or medical negligence on her part. We therefore record our finding on issue No. 2 in the negative. Issue No. 3 : Mrs. Iyer was admitted in the nursing home of O. P. No. 1 which was the case of threatened abortion or she was in the state of spontaneous loss of pregnancy. After taking due precaution O. P. No. 1 decided to take D. and C. procedure because there was non-stop bleeding per vagina and D. and C. procedure was thought most appropriate for evacuating already lost conception material or contents from uterus to save the life of complainant No. 1. While doing so perforation of uterus is held to be most natural and probable as per medical test books. So D. and C. operation under general anaesthesia was performed at about 6. 30 a. m. As is the procedure, the uterine opening was gradually dilated. The Ovum Forceps, a specialized instrument to grasp the dead/dying foetus was inserted into the uterus and the products were pulled out. Subsequently, a blunt ''curette'' (instrument for scraping out remainder of any by-products) was also inserted to remove the debris after the spontaneous abortion. According to O. P. No. 1 doctor, during the removal of debris, she noticed some tubular structure in the cervix. This made her feel that uterus may have been perforated and that the intestine which is immediately outside the uterus in the abdomen might have been affected. She therefore stopped D. and C. procedure immediately and intravenous fluids and cortisone, which are standard treatment in such cases, were administered. Dr. Sathe, Gynaecologist was called immediately for second opinion at 7. 30 a. m. and he confirmed that this was the case perforated uterus. O. P. No. 1 then decided to shift she patient to Rajwadi Municipal Hospital on the advice of Dr. Sathe and one Dr. Manoj Kamdar. At the instance of Dr. Manoj Kamdar, Mrs. Iyer was rushed to Rajawadi Municipal Hospital in ambulance specifically called by O. P. No. 1 and at 8. 30 a. m. along with nurse and complainant''s relative, she was admitted to Rajawadi Municipal Hospital on the advice of Dr. Sathe and Dr. Manoj Kamdar. It has been rightly contended by Mr. Kamath, Consumer Activist appearing for O. P. No. 1 doctor that perforation of uterus is a known, expected and internationally accepted complication of D. and C. as is clear from the medical literature he has produced before us and two affidavits of experts who have also confirmed the after effects of like nature of D. and C. complications. Affidavit of Dr. Anuraddha Sathe, Gynaecologist clearly mentions in paras 13 and 14 as under: "i say that to the best of my knowledge and belief that uterine perforation is a known and accepted complication of the Dilatation and Curettage procedure and I have discussed such cases and seen many of then during my career as a Gynaecologist. I say that to the best of my knowledge and belief, Mrs. Iyer was treated with due care immediately after the incident of perforation, transferred to Hospital as soon as possible with ample precautions and the post-perforation care has been the best possible under the circumstances. "

Another affidavit of Dr. Nalin Patel, Anaesthetist supports O. P. No. 1''s defence in toto. In para 10 of his affidavit he says as follows. I say that to the best of my knowledge and belief that uterine perforation is quite a common, known and accepted complication of the Dilatation and Curettage procedure and I have discussed such cases and seen many of them during my career as an Anaesthetist.

DR. Manoj Kamdar, who is Honorary Professor of Surgery in D. Y. Patil Medical College and was attached to Rajawadi Municipal Hospital where ultimately complainant No. 1 admitted, mentioned that when Mrs. Iyer was brought in the Rajawadi Municipal Hospital he found that the uterus was perforated. He then conducted Exploratory Laparotomy in Rajawadi Hospital and then performed colostomy. Operation went off successfully then after 6 to 8 weeks he again conducted further operation known as ''closure of colostomy'' in Kamdar Hospital. In para 16 of his affidavit he opines as under: "i say that to the best of my knowledge and belief that uterine perforation is quite a common, known and accepted complication of the Dilatation and Curettage procedure and I have myself treated several such cases and have heard my Surgeon and Gynaecologist friends discussing the same at several informal discussions, conferences and other medical meetings. "

Yet another expert Dr. Mahendra Patel, who also filed affidavit in support of O. P. No. 1 asserted in clear terms that Mrs. Iyer''s case was not covered by Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. It was done on the third day of admission whereas M. T. P. is done on the very day on the admission. The case of Mrs. Iyer was emergency D. and C. operation to save the life of patient since there was professed bleeding which could not have been stopped except the D. and C. operation. It was the case of spontaneous (natural abortion) in spite of all efforts made by O. P. No. 1 to save the pregnancy. In para 12 of his affidavit, he asserts as under: "i further say that the uterus perforating is a accidental complication recorded all over the world as it is an inherent risk in all D. and C. procedures. " In the light of these affidavits filed on behalf of O. P. No. 1, and in the absence of any expert evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant, we have no hesitation in holding that in treating Mrs. Mamta Iyer or adopting emergency procedure, O. P. No. 1 committed no medical negligence of whatsoever nature. She did everything in the best interest of the patient free of charge. Calling another expert for second opinion, calling the ambulance, shifting the patient at her own risk to Rajawadi Municipal Hospital summoning services of Dr. Manoj Kamdar and Dr. Mahendra Patel and ensuring that the patient got the best treatment available in Rajawadi Municipal Hospital, were some of the efforts made by O. P. No. 1 on her own volition with the only purpose of giving relief to the woman in distress and this was all done by O. P. No. 1 free of cost. We have not come across any such doctor rendering this sort of help to any patient who had not given single paisa to her.

THE alleged accidental injury occurred in terms of perforation to uterus in the known case of effects of D. and C. procedure well considered throughout the world. So there is nothing wrong if in the course of D. and C. there was perforation of uterus at the hands of O. P. No. 1 doctor. The text produced before us is enough to conclude that there is always inherent risk and probability of perforation of uterus in the case of adoption of D. and C. procedure when it is being employed to stop professed bleeding on account of spontaneous abortion and this was all done by O. P. No. 1 doctor just to save the precious life of complainant No. 1 and the unbearable pain she was suffering from, due to the excessive bleeding. In the circumstances, we are finding that there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of O. P. No. 1 in giving treatment to Mrs. Iyer. She took due and reasonable care and did exhibit professional skill such as Gynaecologist while treating Mrs. Iyer. In no way it could be held that she was deficient in rendering services to complainant No. 1 and it was a free treatment given to her. We therefore record our finding on issue No. 3 in the negative.

ISSUE No. 4 : It was argued at length by Counsel for the complainant Mrs. Geeta Handa Khanuja that O. P. No. 1 doctor had not taken informed consent in writing. However, in the case of emergency as noticed by O. P. No. 1 vis-a-vis complainant''s case, she decided to follow D. and C. procedure immediately after informing Mrs. Iyer. She also appraised of obstetric problem to Mrs. Iyer and told that process of loss of pregnancy had to be completed to avert any injury to Mrs. Iyer and to relieve her of the situation and pain and she willingly consented. Rest of thing which we have already mentioned above was done by O. P. No. 1 doctor in the best interest of the patient and therefore on this ground alone we cannot record finding that O. P. No. 1 doctor was guilty of medical negligence or there was deficiency in service on the part of O. P. No. 1. We reiterate that O. P. No. 1 doctor faced a case of emergency. It was a sort of S. O. S. call and emergency of the patient prompted doctor O. P. No. 1 to take emergent steps to save the life of patient and to relieve her from unbearable pain and it was her prime object to stop profused bleeding which otherwise would have proved fatal for the patient. If in a situation like this a doctor takes crucial decision without bothering to get filled ''informed consent form'' from the patient or her relative, he or she cannot be labelled as deficient in service or stamped as guilty of medical negligence. As such we have no hesitation in recording finding that O. P. No. 1 doctor committed no wrong in opting to have undertaken D. and C. procedure without obtaining informed consent from the patient or her relative. We therefore record our finding on issue No. 4 in the negative. Issue No. 5 : In the light of the discussion made above, we are of the considered view that the complainant filed this complaint against O. P. No. 1 without any basis just to extract some monies from O. P. No. 1 who helped her without charging anything like an angel. Instead of thanking her for the services rendered, for the precious life saved, for the emergent action taken to stop her bleeding and to relieve her of unbearable pain, the complainant is charging O. P. No. 1 of medical negligence. This is very unfortunate situation. O. P. No. 1 doctor was about 71 years old at the time of performing D. and C. operation on the complainant No. 1. She did everything in the best interest of the complainant No. 1 and still ungrateful complainant had an audacity to file a complaint of this nature which is absolutely false and frivolous. In this view of the matter we held that complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. As such we pass following order. Order 1. Complaint stands dismissed. 2. Complainants are directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000 to O. P. No. 1 doctor and to bear their own cost. 3. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. Complaint dismissed.