J. N. Sarma, Member-This is a case of alleged medical negligence. Complainant Smti Anita Devi alias Nimi Borpuzari, who is the aggrieved person, filed this complaint in this Commission against opposite parties, City Maternity Centre, Jorhat and Dr. Jibo Kanta Bora. The case got delayed for the fault of the complainants' Advocate and various other reasons. Ultimately Shri Atulananda Goswami, the authorised representative of the complainant conducted her case. 2. The complainant's case is that in December, 1991 when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy she went to consult attending Gynecologist Dr. Jibo Kanta Bora, the opposite party No.2 who is the owner and Doctor-in-charge of opposite party No.l the City Maternity Centre at Milan Nagar, Jorhat. On the advice of Dr. Bora she got Herself admitted into the Maternity Centre on 18.12.91 for her child birth. On the same day Dr. Bora performed surgical operation on her by cutting open the lower abdomen and a male child was born to the complainant. During the said operation Dr. Bora reportedly repaired the Hernia of the complainant and she was released on 27.12.91 from the Maternity Centre by issuing the Discharge Certificate No.CMC/532 dated 27.12.91 signed by Dr. Bora (opposite party No.2) himself. The bill submitted by the Maternity Centre was duly paid by the complainant at the time of release. 3. After some time the complainant developed acute pain in her lower abdomen with swelling followed by continuous white discharge through her vaginal passage. On 28.2.92 the complainant went to consult opposite party No.2 Dr Bora who after an examination prescribed some medicines to her for two months. But, even after taking the said medicines for two months she did not get any relief from the acute pain and the swelling. Thereafter the complainant consulted Dr. HN Sarma, Retired Professor of Gynecology of Assam Medical College, at Dibrugarh on 9.6.92. After examination of the patient Dr. Sarma observed existence of a lump on the left side of the complainant's abdomen and advised her to consult a surgeon after getting a sonography of the abdomen done. That day itself she consulted Dr. Pranab Barua, Professor of Surgery, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, who prescribed some medicines. But even after taking this medicine she was not relieved of her physical agony and pain as also other complications. That day itself she consulted Dr. Pranab Barua, Professor of Surgery, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, who prescribed some medicines. But even after taking this medicine she was not relieved of her physical agony and pain as also other complications. When the condition of the complainant deteriorated further she had no alternative but lo consult a number of surgeons, physicians and Gynaecologists during the period from 9.6.92 and 8.2.93. Some of the doctors consulted are Dr. Amiya Sarma of Jorhat, Dr. P. Baruah, Dibrugarh and Dr. D. Baruah, Surgeon of Jorhat. Although she got done several pathological tests and sonography and took the medicines as prescribed by the doctors she could not get relief whatsoever. Her health deteriorated alarmingly and she became bed ridden with extreme physical and mental anxiety and pain. 4. In such a situation the complainant had to be removed to the Apollo Hospital in Madras on 13.2.93. She was admitted to Apollo Hospital in Madras on 19.2.93 after waiting for about six days. A series of different tests, scanning and X-rays were done on the complainant in the Hospital and after examining the same it was confirmed by the doctors there that some foreign body existed inside the lower abdomen of the complainant. The Hospital authorities, therefore, decided to operate upon the complainant to remove the foreign body from the abdomen as it was the root cause of her physical agony resulting from the operation performed by opposite party No.2 Dr. Bora at Jorhat. On 22.2.93 another operation was performed on the complainant at Apollo Hospital by cutting open her lower abdomen again. To the utter surprise and dismay of the operating surgeon and every one else two pieces of cotton pads were found inside the lower abdomen of the complainant in a decomposed stage causing extensive damage to the entire reproductive system inside the body as also causing damage to other areas of her abdomen. The Surgeon removed the cotton pads found inside complainant's abdomen, which were alleged to have been left behind due to utter negligence of opposite party No.2 who performed the previous operation at opposite party No.l. It is alleged by the complainant that the cotton pads, known as lap pads found in her abdomen have caused extensive damage to her abdomen so much so that her uterus had to be removed to save her life thereby rendering her permanently handicapped. She was released from Apollo Hospital on 4.3.93 with advice to take complete rest. She was advised also to have periodic check up and take medicines for a long time. 5. The complainant in her complaint alleges that on account of dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 she has suffered loss and injury as also suffered from deprivation, harassment, physical and mental agony etc entitling her to claim Rs.5,00,000/- only spent on her prolonged treatment. Besides, she claims compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for extensive damage to her body and irreparable loss making her permanently handicapped. 6. Complainant has filed as many as fifteen documents/papers connected with her treatment including discharge summary, scanning report, surgical pathological reports dated 25.2.93, one referred by Dr. N. Ramamoorthy and another by Dr. Kausalya Devi, along with the complaint. Besides the Affidavit sworn by Dr. N. Ramamoorthy and Dr. B. Sarat, the Consultant General Surgeons of Apollo Hospital has been filed. 7. The opposite party No.2 Dr. Jibo Kanta Bora, has filed written version denying the allegations, brought by the complainant in her complainant. The plea of the opposite parties is that they are not at all responsible for the alleged loss, injury, expense and mental agony of the complainant and as such the complaint in the present form and state is not maintainable and hence liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard Shri A. Goswami, the authorised representative of the complainant and Shri G. Uzir, learned counsel for the opposite parties. We have perused the complaint, the written version and other relevant papers on record. Besides, we have gone through the Affidavit of the Consultant General .Surgeons of the Apollo Hospital and have taken into consideration the decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Zimbah Bapu Godbole, reported in AIR 1969 SC 128 and of State Commission', Delhi, in Ch. DP Bhandari & others vs. Sir Gangarain Hospital & others, reported in (1991) II CPJ 409. The packet containing the two pieces of pads, known as lap pads, found inside the abdomen of the complainant, brought from Apollo Hospital has been produced before us too at the time of hearing. We have also seen the photo­graph of those two pads shown to us by the learned authorised representative of the complainant. The packet containing the two pieces of pads, known as lap pads, found inside the abdomen of the complainant, brought from Apollo Hospital has been produced before us too at the time of hearing. We have also seen the photo­graph of those two pads shown to us by the learned authorised representative of the complainant. The packet and photograph have been made part of the records, 9. On perusal of the complaint and other relevant papers submitted by the complainant we find that she has made out a case against the opposite parties. The series of events mentioned in the complaining and supported by evidence on record lead us to believe that there was gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties, particularly the doctor (opposite party No.2) who operated upon and left behind the two pads in the abdomen of the complainant. In fact there is no serious attempt on the part of the opposite parties to rebut the evidence. We do not find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for opposite parties that the pads recovered and produced may not belong to the opposite party Maternity Centre. This is a feeble attempt to defend the case. There is nothing on the record to show that there might have been any other surgical operation in between the operations performed by opposite party No.2 on IS. 12.91 d in his centre at Jorhat and subsequent operation performed at Apollo Hospital on 22.2.93 which led to the detection of the two pads left behind in the abdomen in the earlier operation. Nothing can be decided on mere suspicion and conjectures. In view of the unrebutted ample evidence adduced by the complainant there is not even scope for suspicion and conjectures in this case. 10. It would be pertinent to quote below the observation of the Apex Court in the case cited by the complainant, reported in AIR 1969 SC 128 . "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of a care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree" of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires : (of: Halsbury's Law of England, 3rd Ed Vol. 26 p 17). The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion irrelatively ampler in cases of emergency." This is a general observation and it may not be applicable in go to the instant case. Although there is no allegation of lack of skill, wrong treatment or error in judgment, it is abundantly clear that in the present case the doctor (opposite party No.2) miserably failed in discharging his duty of care in administration of the treatment as a whole by leaving behind to pieces of lap pads in the abdomen with serious consequences of post operation complications. It is a case of serious dereliction of duty and gross negligence on the part of the doctor himself as well as other attending staff thereby making the-maternity centre itself (opposite party 1) also liable for the lapse. In the Delhi State Commission case cited by the a complainant also the above observation of the Apex Court has been quoted. It is needless to discuss this case at length as the facts are not similar to those of the present case except for the observation on the medical negligence part of it. 11. In the Delhi State Commission case cited by the a complainant also the above observation of the Apex Court has been quoted. It is needless to discuss this case at length as the facts are not similar to those of the present case except for the observation on the medical negligence part of it. 11. As defined Blacks' Law Dictionary,- "Negligence per se-conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, •enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes." In our opinion the above definition of negligence per se is amply applicable in the instant case as the doctor's (opposite party 2) omission to remove the lap pads or get the same removed after the operation is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. This is an extreme case of careless­ness on the part of opposite party 2 and his staff attending to the operation with him. 12. In Lord Nithan's Medical Negligence (1957 Edn) the following observation of Lord Presdent Chyde in Hunter vs. Hanly (1955 SLT 213) is relied upon: "The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of it acting with reasonable care." (p.22). In the present case the doctor (opposite party 2) has been proved to be guilty of such failure like not removing the lap pads from the complainant's abdomen after operation as no doctor or ordinary skill would be guilty of it acting with reasonable care. Apparently these was no reasonable care exercised by the doctor and his attending staff, which resulted in dire consequences. 13. Apparently these was no reasonable care exercised by the doctor and his attending staff, which resulted in dire consequences. 13. So, far as evidence adduced by the complainant is concerned we rely mainly on the Discharge Summary of the Apollo Hospital and the Affidavit of the two-Consultant General Surgeons of the Hospital. The relevant-and vital portion of the operation notes in the Discharge Summary is quoted below : "....On opening the cavity a full regular sized lap pad was found extruding out and the said pad was removed. The abdominal cavity washed well and the peritoneal toileting was done, abscess wall was excised in toto, taking care not to injure ureter and intestines. There was another tumour similar found on the right side which was behind the uterus, adhenaxae and in relation to caecum and loops of intestines "were adherent to it. The same procedure was repeated on this side also which contained one more regular sized lap pad....” This report makes it abundantly clear that two pieces of lap pads were found in the abdomen of the complainant. The affidavit of the two Consultant General Surgeons, viz. Dr. N. Ramamoorthy and Dr. B. Sarat of Apollo Hospital has corroborated what is stated in the Discharge Summary. The relevant portion of the Affidavit is quoted below : "4. We state that in the surgery performed by us on the complainant two cotton pads were found and removed from the abdomen portion of the complainant and later on were handed over to her. 5. We confirm that the documents filed by the complainant, namely, document numbers XI), XII), XIII) and XIV) were issued to the complainant by Apollo Hospital, Madras 6." There is no evidence whatsoever adduced by the opposite parties to rebut this evidence on the issue of finding the two pieces of lap pads in the abdomen of the complainant when she was operated upon subsequently at Apollo Hospital. 14. There is no denying the fact that the complainant was operated upon by Dr. J. Bora (opposite party 2) himself in his Maternity Center (opposite party 1) for her child birth. As stated by the complainant in paragraph 7 of the complaint she developed acute pain in her lower abdomen with swelling followed by continuous white discharge through her vaginal passage. J. Bora (opposite party 2) himself in his Maternity Center (opposite party 1) for her child birth. As stated by the complainant in paragraph 7 of the complaint she developed acute pain in her lower abdomen with swelling followed by continuous white discharge through her vaginal passage. Quite naturally she went to consult opposite party No.2 on 28.2.92, who after examining her , prescribed some medicine for two months. As claimed by her she took the medicines prescribed by the doctor, but to no relief. The acute pain and swelling continued. In our opinion the opposite party No.2 took the case very casually. He should have gone for further investigation as it was his case and it involved post operation complications. In his reply to the paragraph 7 of the complaint the opposite party 2 has stated in paragraph 10 of his written version that the operation was successful and after such operation both the new born baby and the mother were doing well. According to him post natal check ups were also satisfactory. It is stated that the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for any negligent act done by the complainant after discharge. The operation was performed on 18.12.91 and the complainant complained of acute pain, swelling etc on 28.2.92. There is no evidence adduced by the opposite party 2 of the post natal check ups being satisfactory. We are not convinced by the assertion of opposite party No.2. The subsequent events of the complainant's going to one doctor after another at Jorhat and Dibrugarh lead us to believe that there were serious complications resulting from the surgical operation by opposite party 2 at this Maternity Centre (opposite party 1). When there is no evidence of any other surgical operation being undergone by the complainant the findings of the operation at Apollo Hospital lead us to the logical conclusion that the two pieces of slap pads found in the adbomen were left there by the doctor (opposite party 2) in the previous operation performed by him on the complainant for child birth. This was utter carelessness and act of gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties causing injury, irreparable loss and suffering to the complainant. 15. On the .facts and circumstances of the .case, we come to the definite conclusion that the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service and gross negligence. This was utter carelessness and act of gross negligence on the part of the opposite parties causing injury, irreparable loss and suffering to the complainant. 15. On the .facts and circumstances of the .case, we come to the definite conclusion that the opposite parties are liable for deficiency in service and gross negligence. We find that there is merit in the complaint and the complainant has proved the allegations against the opposite parties by adducing cogent and credible evidence. 16. In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties No. 1, the City Maternity Centre and No.2, Dr Jibo Kanta Bora are directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs) only for the hysical injury, mental agony and harassment etc caused to her by the negligent act of the opposite parties. Besides, the opposite parties are directed further to pay another amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) only to the complainant towards expenses incurred by her on medical treatment subsequent to the operation performed by opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.l till the lap pads were found in the Apollo Hospital in Madras. As it appears from the records she has incurred substantial expenditure for conducting this case and for ancillary purposes in connection with the case. In our opinion it would meet the ends of justice if we award cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to be paid by the opposite parties. As the opposite party No.2 Dr. Jibo Kanta Bora is the owner of opposite party No.l the City Maternity Centre, Jorhat, we direct him to pay the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/- only, as aforesaid, within a period of three months from this order. If he fails to pay the amount within this period he shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the expiry of the period of three months till realisation.