- (1.) This appeal is filed against the order dated 19.11.2003 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'Commission') rejecting the appellant"s complaint (O.P. No.12/1996) under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("Act" for short). Undisputed facts
(2.) On 9.5.1995, the appellant, an unmarried woman aged 44 years, visited the clinic of the first respondent (for short "the respondent") complaining of prolonged menstrual bleeding for nine days. The respondent examined and advised her to undergo an ultrasound test on the same day. After examining the report, the respondent had a discussion with appellant and advised her to come on the next day (10.5.1995) for a laparoscopy test under general anesthesia, for making an affirmative diagnosis.
(3.) Accordingly, on 10.5.1995, the appellant went to the respondent's clinic with her mother. On admission, the appellant's signatures were taken on (i) admission and discharge card; (ii) consent form for hospital admission and medical treatment; and (iii) consent form for surgery. The Admission Card showed that admission was "for diagnostic and operative laparoscopy on 10.5.1995". The consent form for surgery filled by Dr. Lata Rangan (respondent's assistant) described the procedure to be undergone by the appellant as "diagnostic and operative laparoscopy. Laparotomy may be needed". Thereafter, appellant was put under general anesthesia and subjected to a laparoscopic examination. When the appellant was still unconscious, Dr. Lata Rengen, who was assisting the respondent, came out of the Operation Theatre and took the consent of appellant"s mother, who was waiting outside, for performing hysterectomy under general anesthesia. Thereafter, the Respondent performed a abdominal hystecrectomy (removal of uterus) and bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy (removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes). The appellant left the respondent"s clinic on 15.5.1995 without settling the bill.;