MCC 02

BEFORE THE
HONBLE
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
At
NEW DELHI

IN THE MATTER OF
TANIA KEJRIWAL
(Appellant)
Vs.
1. DR. SAMTHA MAJHI
2. DR. SOMDUTTA
3. THE SWISS PARK HOSPITAL at KOCHI through
MANAGEMENT
(Respondent)
--------------------------------------MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
--------------------------------------2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Content.01
List of Abbreviation02
Index of Authorities03
Statement of Jurisdiction04
Statement of Facts...05
Issues Raised...06
Summary of Pleadings07
Pleadings..08-09
Prayer for Relief..10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Art. Article
AIR All India Reporters
SC Supreme Court
Hon Honourable
MTP Medical Termination of Pregnancy

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
BOOKS
Universal Publication, Consumer Protection Act 1986
Jiaswal J.V.N., Legal Aspects of Pregnancy, Delivery and Abortion
Rao Y.V., Law Relating to Medical Negligence, 2nd Edition

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The appellant has approached the Honourable court under section 19 of the Consumer
Protection Act of 1986 which is stated as under
Section 19: Appeal
Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its
powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 17 may prefer an appeal
against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date
of the order in such form
The appellant also approaches the Honourable court under section 21(a) part (ii) of the
Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is stated as under Section 21: Jurisdiction of the National Commission
Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction(a) To entertain(i) Complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed
exceeds rupees 1, 00, 00,000(One Crore); and
(ii) Appeals against the orders of any State Commission.
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is
pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the
National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it
by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its
jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
The petitioner is resident of Kochi and married to Rajiv Kejriwal. In October 2000 Rajiv and
petitioner got married and within 22 months, petitioner gave birth to a child in August 2002.
Just two months later that is in December 2002 petitioner approached respondent no.1
working at the Swiss Park Hospital, Kochi to examine for her pregnancy. After several
examinations, it was found that petitioner was pregnant. Knowing about the medical history
of the petitioner, respondent no.1 advised the couple to medically terminate the pregnancy as
soon as possible to avoid later strain and medical illness later. As advised, the couple reached
the hospital for medical termination of pregnancy. The procedure of termination of pregnancy
included various medical practises and steps. Thus, on the first day of the process that is on
9/10/2002, respondent no.1 inserted an instrument called Laminaria Tent into petitioner to
dilate the cervix which is general medical practise in process such as this of abortion. On the
other day of the process that is on 10/10/2002, respondent no.1 was accompanied by
respondent no.2 who is a lady gynaecologist. Both respondent no.1 and no.2 took the
petitioner in the labour room for the termination of pregnancy. Around one hour later
respondent no.2 reached to Rajiv and informed him that due to few complications during the
termination of pregnancy, petitioner has started to bleed profusely which may be harmful to
petitioners life and to avoid death they have to conduct an operation. In due confusion, Rajiv
permitted the respondents to proceed with the operation. Later, when the operation ended,
respondent no.1 informed that petitioner was safe, but her uterus had to be removed. Due to
the removal of the uterus, petitioner had to face several hormonal complications and mental
stress that she could not conceive again.

ISSUE RAISED
I
Whether Rajiv (on behalf of the appellant) was informed about the procedure involved in
operation, such as removal of organ (uterus), and its consequences conducted by the
respondents?
II
Whether deficiency existed in the deliverance of Medical Service, such as Medical
termination of Pregnancy, on the part of the Respondents?
III
Whether the appellant suffered from physical injury/damage/ deterioration, due to deficiency
in medical service delivered by the respondents?
IV
Whether the appellant suffered from mental injury/damage/deterioration, due to deficiency in
medical service delivered by the respondents?

SUMMARY OF PLEADINGS
Rajiv, as a consumer has the right to be informed about the standards and potency of the
service including their procedures and consequences, such as of medical services too. But as
the facts he was not informed about the same.

Therefore there exists negligence on the part of the respondents towards the consumer.
As it was not informed about the procedures, such as removal of organ, and its consequences
to the appellant or to person for her behalf there exist negligence in the deliverance of
medical service by the respondents.
Due to the removal of the uterus appellant had to face several hormonal problems as the
consequences. Therefore, due to deficiency in medical service she had to face various
physical problems.
Due to the removal of the uterus, the appellant could not conceive again. This made her face
lots of criticism amongst family and she is mentally broken down with the fact that she
cannot conceive again. Therefore due to deficiency in medical service appellant had to suffer
from mental injury.

PLEADING
Rajiv (on behalf of the appellant) was not informed about the procedure
involved in operation, such as removal of organ (uterus), and its
consequences conducted by the respondents.
During the operation for MTP, respondent no.2 came out of the operation theatre and
informed that the appellant was bleeding profusely; therefore to stop the bleeding respondents
had to conduct an operation for which they seek Rajivs permission. Rajiv was so scared and
tensed and was not at all in presence state of mind, he gave his assent and for as the fact
states that he was not informed about what the operation was about and its consequences.
Section 6(b), Consumer Protection Act 1986
6. Objects of the Central Council - The objects of the Central Council shall be to
promote and protect the rights of the consumers such as,(b).The right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and
price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices.
As per the above act Rajiv, (on behalf of the appellant) as a consumer has the right to be
informed about the standards and potency of the service including their procedures and
consequences, such as of medical services too. But as the facts he was not informed about the
same.
Therefore there exists negligence on the part of the respondents towards the consumer.

Deficiency existed in the deliverance of Medical Service, such as Medical

termination of Pregnancy, on the part of the Respondents.
As it was not informed about the procedures, such as removal of organ, and its consequences
to the appellant or to person for her behalf there exist negligence in the deliverance of
medical service by the respondents.

The appellant suffered from physical injury/damage/ deterioration, due to

deficiency in medical service delivered by the respondents.
Due to the removal of the uterus appellant had to face several hormonal problems as the
consequences. Therefore, due to deficiency in medical service she had to face various
physical problems.

Appellant suffered from mental injury/damage/deterioration, due to

deficiency in medical service delivered by the respondents.
Due to the removal of the uterus, the appellant could not conceive again. This made her face
lots of criticism amongst family and she is mentally broken down with the fact that she
cannot conceive again. Therefore due to deficiency in medical service appellant had to suffer
from mental injury.

PRAYER
In lights of the facts stated, arguments advanced, the Petitioner, humbly
Prays before the Honourable Court to
To please allow the compensation claimed, with cost incurred.
The Court may also be pleased to pass any other order, which the Court
may deem fit in light of Justice Equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED.

Counsel(s) Appellant

10