Background: abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) is a common gynecological disorder in women. To render appropriate treatment, it is vital to establish the correct diagnosis, in this backdrop we've studied the utility of hysteroscopy as a diagnostic procedure against a blind dilatation and curettage. The objectives of the study were hysteroscopic evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive and post-menopausal women. Hysteroscopic findings were compared with the histopathological reports following blind dilatation and curettage. Methods:It was a prospective study on women with signs and symptoms of AUB for a period of 12 months. Detailed history and medical examination and Transvaginal ultrasound (USG) of pelvis were done for endometrial thickness and toruleout structural abnormality. 50 cases were included for hysteroscopy. Endometrial biopsy taken by blind dilation and curettage (D&C) and sent for histopathological examination (HPE). The hysteroscopic and histopathological findings wereanalyzed. Results:Both hysteroscopy and (D&C) were accurate when an abnormality was recognized, giving a specificity of 96.4% and 96.4% respectively and positive predictive value of (95.2% versus 94.4%). The potential to diagnose a lesion was more with hysteroscopy i.e. sensitivity in evaluation to curettage, (90.9% versus 77.4%), and a negative diagnosis was less wrongly made with hysteroscopy in comparison to curettage (false negative rate: 9.1% versus 22.7%). In intracavitary lesions like polyp, hysteroscopy was best. Conclusions: Hysteroscopy is a sensitive diagnostic procedure that provides useful information in all intracavitary lesions and has a higher sensitivity and specificity. A blind D & C can miss focal lesions including Polypendometrial carcinoma, hence hysteroscopy is advisable.