West Bengal

Bankura

CC/06/2012

Smt. Rekha Bagdi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Medical Officer of Health of Bankura - Opp.Party(s)

Banamali Chowdhury

25 Jul 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 06/2012

Date of Filing: 21.02.2012

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Banamali Chowdhury

For the O.P. : Ld. G.P., Bankura

 

Complainant  

Smt. Rekha Bagdi, W/o Sri Kartik Bagdi, at Harialgara, Junbedia, Bankura

Opposite Party  

1.CMOH, Bankura

2.ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Appeejay House, 15 Park St., Kolkata 16

3.Dr. Kartik Chandra Mondal, District M.C.H. Officer, District Health & Family Welfare Bureau Office, Bankura

 

 FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT                 

                                                                                                                                          

Order No.91

Dated:25-07-2023

Complainant files hazira through advocate.

Hazira is filed on behalf of the O.P.1 & 3 through Ld. G.P., Bankura.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case in short is that she having already two child underwent Tubectomy / Sterilization operation on 28/12/2010 at Anchuri BPHC, Bankura by executing a bond with Informed Consent Form under the Family Planning Scheme of Govt. of India. But subsequently she conceived and delivered a female child at BSMCH, Bankura on 20/02/2012. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission claiming adequate compensation alleging medical negligence against the O.P.s.

                                                                                                                                                                                    Contd……p/2

Page: 2

O.P.1 , added O.P.2 and O.P.3 separately filed Written versions to contest the case denying material allegation made in the complaint and contending inter alia that the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case as she has already received compensation of Rs.30,000/- by Cheque No. being 696174, dt.18/04/2012 drawn on ICICI Bank, Mumbai under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme of the Govt. of India. Their further contention is that this is not a case of medical negligence but a case of orgasm as there is no 100% guarantee of the Sterilisation Operation and moreover she did not report missed menstrual cycle after Sterilisation Operation to the concerned Doctor / Health Centre within two weeks in order to get Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) done free of cost in terms of the Bond.

-: Decision with reasons: -

At the outset the Commission takes up the maintainability issue of the instant case. Admittedly the Complainant underwent Sterilization Operation at Anchuri BPHC free of charges which is purely a Govt. Hospital / Health Centre and as such the medical service rendered by the O.P. Authority / O.P. Doctor is not a service within the definition of Section-2 (42) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as decided by the Apex Court in India Medical Association Vs. V.P. Santha reported in AIR 1996 SC 550 and reaffirmed in a subsequent decision dated: 07/12/2021 in Nivedita Singh Vs. Dr. Asha Bharati & Ors in Civil Appeal No.103/12

Apart from this,  the Supreme Court in AIR 2005 SC 3280 State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors. has held that failure of successful Sterilization Operation is attributable to causes other than medical negligence and the State Govt. should think of devising and making provision for a welfare fund in collaboration with Insurance companies to compensate the victim.

As stated above the Complainant has already received a compensation of Rs.30,000/- taking into consideration the prospective effect of failure of Sterilization Operation.

For the reasons stated above the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case on maintainability issue as well as on merit of the case.

The case therefore fails.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. but without cost.

Both parties be supplied copy of this order free of cost.

 

 ____________________                _________________             _________________

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT            HON’BLE MEMBER        HON’BLE MEMBER