M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant / appellant, being a married women, after conceivement, had consulted the 1st opposite party, from 23.2.2002, and in the course of the treatment, when the scan was taken in the 4th month, at the request of the 1st opposite party, in the 3rd opposite party scan centre, the complainant was informed, the baby is well developed, and the complainant has to be very careful, since it is the first delivery. While taking continuous treatment, the complainant was given antenatal card, and thereafter also, on various dates, after consultation, as instructed by the 1st opposite party, the complainant had taken treatment, medicine strictly.
(3.) On 15.3.2003, when the complainant had been to the 1st opposite party, for checkup, since it was 10th month, she advised to take scan, in order to fix the actual date of delivery, and accordingly a scan was taken. The 1st opposite party informed, on seeing the scan, that the baby has not developed fully, and at the time of delivery, there is a possibility of affecting the uterus, and therefore the complainant has to go to big hospital, such as Jipmer, for treatment. The 1st opposite party, failed to inform the underdevelopment of the baby, at the time of taking the scan, in the 4th month, which should be construed as negligent act, as well deficiency of service.;