As per the case facts, the husband of the appellant passed away due to long illness, leading the appellant to believe his death was due to post-operative medical negligence. The ... National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found no medical negligence and dismissed the complaint. The appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging this dismissal. The question arose whether the death of the appellant's husband was a result of post-operative medical negligence and if the hospital where post-operative care was provided required registration under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. Finally, the Supreme Court found no fault in the reasoning of the Commission, concluding it was not a case of post-operative medical negligence. The Court observed that while procedures for transplantation require registration under Section 14 of the 1994 Act, there is no provision requiring registration for hospitals providing post-operative care after a patient is discharged. The appeal was dismissed without costs.