ORDER (Per: Mr. C.C. Pant, Member): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 10 of 2007. Vide its order, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and has directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the medical expenses incurred by her, Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation, within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant – Smt. Laxmi Devi alias Gudiya, who was pregnant, got slipped while doing some work and suffered miscarriage on 28.07.2006. She was taken to Dr. Sudhir Kumar, who runs “Jachcha-Bachcha Kendra” (i.e. maternity centre) and the midwife who works in this centre, by her mother-in-law and her parents, as her husband was out of station. Dr. Sudhir Kumar checked up the complainant and prescribed some medicines and referred her to Harmilap Hospital for further treatment. The complainant took the medicines prescribed by Dr. Sudhir Kumar for two or three days, but she did not get relief from pain. On 31.07.2006, the complainant consulted Dr. N.K. Agarwal of City Hospital, who administered her some injections and advised for ultrasound and some other tests. These tests were conducted by the City Hospital itself and also by Ratan Bharti Diagnostic Kendra, Ranipur More, Haridwar. It appears from the consumer complaint that by that time the complainant’s husband had come back to home. He took the complainant to Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama, Kankhal on 31.07.2006, as he was not in a position to afford the costly treatment in City Hospital. In Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama, Kankhal, one lady doctor Dr. Madhu Shah attended the complainant and after detailed investigations, she started treatment. The complainant remained under the treatment of Dr. Madhu Shah for about 13-14 days. On 14.08.2006, the ultrasound test was done on the advice of Dr. Madhu Shah. On the basis of the clinical reports, Dr. Madhu Shah advised the complainant to consult a lady surgeon for further treatment. On doctor’s advice, the complainant’s husband took her to Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur –opposite party on 14.08.2006 and the complainant remained under her treatment upto 19.08.2006. Madhu Shah. On the basis of the clinical reports, Dr. Madhu Shah advised the complainant to consult a lady surgeon for further treatment. On doctor’s advice, the complainant’s husband took her to Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur –opposite party on 14.08.2006 and the complainant remained under her treatment upto 19.08.2006. The complainant has alleged that she was kept on medication for the first three days by the opposite party and due to this, pus had increased in her abdomen. On 16.08.2006, the complainant was operated upon, for which the opposite party charged from her an amount of Rs. 10,000/- against the operation fee, medicines, bed charges etc., but the opposite party did not issue any receipt for that amount. On 18.08.2006, the complainant felt the need to meet the nature’s call, but she was not in a position to go to the toilet. The opposite party, instead of providing bed pan, directed the nurse to take the complainant to toilet. As soon as, the complainant tried to get up from the bed with nurse’s support, the stitches of operation got broken and the intestines bulged out. Thus, the opposite party had committed a gross negligence in the operation and wound was not properly stitched. Even when the complainant’s condition deteriorated, the opposite party did not pay much heed to her and did not advise her husband to take her to some other surgeon. Instead, the opposite party put a dressing on the wound and directed the complainant to get some tests done. The tests were conducted by Dr. Yatendra Nagyan in his laboratory, who submitted the report on 19.08.2006 (Paper No. 48). The tests report revealed that the pus was mixed with some other matter. On examining the report, the opposite party did not provide any treatment to the complainant and discharged her from the nursing home on 19.08.2006 for treatment somewhere else. The husband of the complainant then took her on the same day to Combined Medical Institute (or C.M.I.) Dehradun and got her admitted there. In C.M.I., Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and some other doctors checked her up. On their advice, some tests were conducted in Centre for Advance Pathology & Microbiology Services and two operations were performed upon the complainant in C.M.I. for setting the intestines in order, where she remained admitted upto 28.09.2006. In C.M.I., Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and some other doctors checked her up. On their advice, some tests were conducted in Centre for Advance Pathology & Microbiology Services and two operations were performed upon the complainant in C.M.I. for setting the intestines in order, where she remained admitted upto 28.09.2006. She has also stated in her consumer complaint that one more operation is yet to be performed, which will cost about Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, alleging negligence in treatment and operation on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar on 08.01.2007, praying therein to award a total amount of Rs. 4,70,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum against the expenses incurred by her in treatment, doctor’s fee, medicines, future operation and physical & mental agony and also Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation. The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint vide its order dated 22.07.2008 and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- against the medical expenses, fee, physical & mental agony and cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party has filed this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. The appellant - Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur was also present. So, we also heard appellant in person on the medical aspect of the case. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant - opposite party argued that the District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent – complainant has initially got herself treated by a midwife and unskilled doctor and this was the main cause that some complications, such as formation of pus in her intestines, had developed since the day the respondent had undergone miscarriage on 28.07.2006. Since the unskilled doctor and midwife, viz. Dr. Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Munni Devi, could not manage it, the respondent went to Dr. N.K. Agarwal of City Hospital and then to Dr. Madhu Shah of Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama. When the treatment given by these doctors also failed, then the respondent came to appellant, who did her best to manage the pain initially by administering medicines and injections and then by performing operation. The treatment papers clearly indicate the quantity of pus drained out each day. Madhu Shah of Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama. When the treatment given by these doctors also failed, then the respondent came to appellant, who did her best to manage the pain initially by administering medicines and injections and then by performing operation. The treatment papers clearly indicate the quantity of pus drained out each day. The learned counsel submitted that the allegation of committing negligence in operation by the appellant is totally false, because the stitches had broken not due to appellant’s negligence, but due to some infection, which the respondent had caught during her treatment taken from unskilled doctors and a midwife. The learned counsel also submitted that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, because she has not impleaded those doctors, who had treated her prior to her coming to the appellant. The appellant gave the treatment, which was necessary, but the infection caught by the respondent had made her case a complicated one. The appellant had also called Dr. N.K. Agarwal for respondent’s check up and further treatment. The learned counsel also submitted that it was the appellant who had referred the respondent to C.M.I., Dehradun and had also arranged the ambulance. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. 6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent has admitted herself that on the day the incident of miscarriage occurred, she was taken to one Dr. Sudhir Kumar and a midwife working under him. So she took the first and immediate treatment from these persons. An affidavit of Smt. Munni Devi (Paper No. 27) confirms that the respondent had undergone miscarriage on 28.07.2006 and she had checked her up. Dr. Sudhir Kumar has also filed his affidavit (Paper No. 28) averring therein that he is a skilled doctor and holds a degree of B.E.M.S. and F.M.E.H. He has claimed himself a Gynaecologist, Pediatrician and an expert in national leprosy eradiation and state family planning programmes. He has also confirmed the incident of miscarriage and has averred that he had prescribed some medicines to the complainant and had advised her to consult the doctors of Bengali Hospital. He has also averred that the case of the respondent was not a case of operation, but it was curable by medication. He has also confirmed the incident of miscarriage and has averred that he had prescribed some medicines to the complainant and had advised her to consult the doctors of Bengali Hospital. He has also averred that the case of the respondent was not a case of operation, but it was curable by medication. He has further stated that Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur, who had performed the operation, is solely responsible for the condition of the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant had sought some information from Uttarakhand Medical Council in respect of the qualification of Dr. Sudhir Kumar through Right to Information Act, 2005, which is at Paper Nos. 111-112. According to this information, B.E.M.S. degree holders are not authorized for M.T.P. (i.e. Medical Termination of Pregnancy). The respondent had not impleaded Dr. Sudhir Kumar in her consumer complaint as a party and, therefore, he could not be questioned as to how he has claimed himself a Gynaecologist and as to how he could say that Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur, the appellant, is solely responsible for the condition of the respondent. If Dr. Sudhir Kumar was of the opinion that the respondent was curable by medication only, then why he could not cure her and why he advised her to consult the doctors of Bengali Hospital. Neither Dr. Sudhir Kumar nor the respondent has clarified anywhere as to where this Bengali Hospital is situated. There is a mention of Harmilap Hospital in the consumer complaint. Perhaps the same is being referred to as Bengali Hospital. At Paper No. 35, there is a prescription, which appears to be signed by Dr. Sudhir Kumar on 28.07.2006. The said prescription also indicates that the respondent was referred to Harmilap Hospital, Haridwar. In para No. 2 of her consumer complaint, the respondent has stated that initially she got some relief from the medicines prescribed by Dr. Sudhir Kumar, but the pain in her abdomen restarted after three days. Dr. Sudhir Kumar claims himself a Gynaecologist and has also averred in his affidavit that the respondent was curable by medication, then why he had referred her to Bengali (or Harmilap) Hospital and why he did not continue the treatment? Sudhir Kumar, but the pain in her abdomen restarted after three days. Dr. Sudhir Kumar claims himself a Gynaecologist and has also averred in his affidavit that the respondent was curable by medication, then why he had referred her to Bengali (or Harmilap) Hospital and why he did not continue the treatment? Though he has not been impleaded as a party in the case, but considering his qualification and in the light of the information supplied by Medical Council of Uttarakhand, he does not appear to be a Gynaecologist, but a charlatan and, therefore, we are of the view that the complications had started in respondent’s abdomen, since the first day of taking treatment from such charlatans like Dr. Sudhir Kumar and a midwife Smt. Munni Devi. That is why, in order to save his skin, Dr. Sudhir Kumar has averred in his affidavit without any basis that Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur is solely responsible for respondent’s condition. 8. We fail to understand as to why the respondent approached Dr. N.K. Agarwal of City Hospital on 31.07.2006. If she had so much faith on Dr. Sudhir Kumar that she has even produced his affidavit as an evidence to prove her case, then she should have adhered to the advice of Dr. Sudhir Kumar and should have consulted the doctors of Harmilap or Bengali Hospital. No reason for discontinuing the treatment of Dr. Sudhir Kumar and not adhering to his advice has been given by her. It also appears that the respondent got various tests, including ultrasound, done on the advice of Dr. N.K. Agarwal, but she did not show these reports to Dr. N.K. Agarwal and instead she consulted one Dr. Madhu Shah of Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama. Dr. Madhu Shah also kept the respondent on medication for about two weeks, but the pain in her abdomen persisted. On 14.08.2006, she again got an ultrasound test done, which revealed that pus had accumulated in her intestines. Dr. Madhu Shah abandoned respondent’s treatment after 14 days and advised her to consult some surgeon. This shows that Dr. Madhu Shah also failed in managing the pain in respondent’s abdomen. The respondent remained under the treatment of Dr. Madhu Shah for 14 days. Even then, the respondent has not been impleaded Dr. Dr. Madhu Shah abandoned respondent’s treatment after 14 days and advised her to consult some surgeon. This shows that Dr. Madhu Shah also failed in managing the pain in respondent’s abdomen. The respondent remained under the treatment of Dr. Madhu Shah for 14 days. Even then, the respondent has not been impleaded Dr. Madhu Shah as a party in the case, due to which we are unable to make an appraisal of the fact, as to what was the reason that the pain persisted for such a long period and Dr. Madhu Shah also failed to diagnose the reason at the early stage and why should she also be held liable for contributory negligence committed in the treatment of the respondent. 9. As discussed above, the ultrasound test was conducted on 14.08.2006 and on the same day the respondent approached Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaurthe appellant, who got the respondent admitted in her maternity home. Initially, she administered some medicines and injections on the respondent and on 16.08.2006, the respondent was operated upon, in which Dr. N.K. Agarwal also assisted the appellant. However, on 18.08.2006, the stitches of operation got broken and respondent’s condition deteriorated. After conducting ultrasound test, the appellant felt the need to refer the respondent to a higher medical centre. Though the allegation made by the respondent in her consumer complaint against the appellant is that the appellant did not refer her to some other doctor, but the discharge certificate (Paper No. 57) shows that the appellant had referred the respondent to higher centre. In C.M.I., Dehradun, the respondent was treated by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta. 10. Thus, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be blamed in solo for committing negligence in respondent’s treatment. The complication in respondent’s lower abdomen had started from the day she was under the treatment of Dr. Sudhir Kumar, so called Gynaecologist and a B.E.M.S degree holder, and Smt. Munni Devi, a midwife working in Dr. Sudhir Kumar’s “Jachcha- Bachcha Kendra”. After taking treatment from these charlatans, she took treatment from Dr. Madhu Shah, a doctor in Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama. The record does not reveal the medical qualification of Dr. Madhu Shah. The only treatment paper, which appears to be signed by Dr. Madhu Shah, is at Paper No. 42, wherein she has prescribed Injection Voveron. Though Dr. After taking treatment from these charlatans, she took treatment from Dr. Madhu Shah, a doctor in Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama. The record does not reveal the medical qualification of Dr. Madhu Shah. The only treatment paper, which appears to be signed by Dr. Madhu Shah, is at Paper No. 42, wherein she has prescribed Injection Voveron. Though Dr. Madhu Shah had kept the respondent under her treatment for 14 days, but there is no record with regard to treatment given by her to the respondent. On 14.08.2006, when Dr. Madhu Shah observed, on the basis of ultrasound report, that there was complication in the lower abdomen of the respondent, then she also discontinued the treatment and advised the respondent to consult a surgeon. From 14.08.2006 to 19.08.2006, the respondent remained under the treatment of Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur. Though Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur has also not mentioned her qualification in the written statement and affidavits filed by her, but while making certain submissions before the Commission with regard to the case, she admitted that she is M.B.B.S., M.S. (Gynaecology and Obstetric). The documents at Paper Nos. 45 & 48 also confirm her qualification. Therefore, the appellant possessed the required skill for the treatment of the respondent. 11. The respondent has stated in her consumer complaint that the appellant gave such medicines which had increased the formation of pus in her abdomen. This allegation is without any footing. The respondent has failed to adduce any evidence in respect of medical negligence committed by the appellant in her treatment. It is necessary to prove in such cases as to what was required to be done by the appellant which she did not do and what she had done was not required to be done. But we are of the view that the appellant has certainly committed negligence in post operative care of the respondent. The respondent was admitted in appellant’s maternity home and was under her constant care. If during that period, the stitches of operation got broken and intestines bulged out, then it is carelessness and negligence in service on the part of the appellant. It is not sufficient to say that some infection had developed during the period the respondent took treatment from charlatans and due to that infection, the stitches got broken. If during that period, the stitches of operation got broken and intestines bulged out, then it is carelessness and negligence in service on the part of the appellant. It is not sufficient to say that some infection had developed during the period the respondent took treatment from charlatans and due to that infection, the stitches got broken. In support of her contention, the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence in the form of medical literature or authority on this point. The explanation given by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is quite vague and we are not convinced from it. Therefore, the appellant is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the respondent due to the negligence committed by her. The District Forum has assessed the medical expenses at Rs. 1,00,000/- and compensation for mental & physical agony at Rs. 50,000/- and the respondent appears to be satisfied with the judgment passed by the District Forum, because no appeal has been preferred by her against the order. As discussed above, the respondent had approached the appellant after 17 days of the incident of miscarriage and during this period, she had remained under the treatment of Dr. Sudhir Kumar, a midwife Smt. Munni Devi and Dr. Madhu Shah. Therefore, it appears to us most unjust that the appellant should be saddled with the total liability to pay the amount of medical expenses and compensation to the respondent. Because the earlier doctors who had treated the respondent have not been arrayed as party, but keeping in view that they also appear to be negligent in treatment, the amount awarded by the District Forum needs to be reduced. In our view, it would be proper and just that the award of medical expenses be reduced to Rs. 40,000/- and for mental & physical agony to Rs. 20,000/-. Cost of litigation, as awarded by the District Forum, is just and proper. Therefore, the impugned order needs to be modified accordingly and the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 12. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 10 of 2007 is modified by reducing the awarded amount towards medical expenses to Rs. 40,000/- and that of mental & physical agony to Rs. 20,000/-. Rest of the impugned order is confirmed. No order as to costs.