DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 31/2014

Smt. Ramesh Bhati

W/o Sh. Rakesh Bhati

R/o Dera Fatehpur Beri,

New Delhi

At present:

G-30, Ganeshpuri, Ghaziabad, U.P.                 … Complainant  

1.      Dr. Divya

Deptt. of  Obstetrics &  Gynaecology

AIIMS, Ansari Road,

New Delhi-110029

2.      Director

Deptt. of  Obstetrics &  Gynaecology

AIIMS, Ansari Road,

New Delhi-110029

3.      Directorate, Health Services

          CDMO Office Begum Pur

          Near Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110017

4.      Ministry of Health

          Govt. of  India- C-Wing

          Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi                              …Opposite parties

                                 Date of Institution:          29.01.14            Date of Order        :           24.05.17

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Briefly stated the case of the Complainant is that the OP No. 1 conducted the operation which failed due to negligent operation.  Complainant was admitted in the OP hospital for vasectomy/tubectomy operation under O.T. registration No. 146075, Certificate No. 513187 in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology   and operated by OP No.1 on 19.5.2010 and she was given assurance that there will be no other child birth. However, complainant gave birth to a female child, namely, Prachi on 07.07.11 at OP hospital because of her faulty operation by OP No.1 on 19.05.10. She approached so many times to OP No.1 & 2 for damages but the OPs shifted their burden on one another and she felt humiliated. As she had already two sons and two daughters before the above operation, she did not want another child.  It is submitted that she spent huge amounts on medical treatment on her child Prachi because she was born with so many ailments and other children were also deprived of their rights because of the new born child. She approached again for second operation which was conducted on 14.07.11 by Dr. Praveen of OP hospital which is effective till date.  She sent a legal notice U/s 80 CPC on 18.11.13 to all the OPs.  The legal notice of OP No.1 was received back and OP No.2 & 4 did not reply and OP No.3 sent a reply to the legal notice. The reply dated 07.01.2014 submitted by the OP No.3 is not satisfactory inasmuch as it inter-alia stated as hereunder:

(i) AIIMS was not accredited for tubectomy at the time of operation and doctors performing sterilized operation operates were no empanelled AND (ii) AIIMS and Doctors performed that tubectomy operation are responsible for this issue AND (iii) we have not received any documents for the case.”

Hence, there was deficiency in service and negligence in conducting the operation by the OPs.  Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs. twenty lacs) as compensation, damages, expenditure of child, life care maintenance, marriage etc.

          Mr. Rohit Kumar, Adv. appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 on 23.05.2014 and collected copy of complaint. Thereafter,  all the OPs have been proceeded exparte vide order dated  29.04.2015.

          Complainant has filed her own affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments.

          We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

OPs have the knowledge about the filing of the complaint but have not chosen to contest it. The complainant has filed a certificate issued by the OPs regarding first operation on 19.05.2010 (copy Ex. CW-1/A) and second operation on 07.07.11 (copy Ex. CW-1/E).  Ex. CW-1/B relates to the discharge summary of the child born. The complainant has filed the birth certificate of Baby Prachi as Ex. CW-1/C. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant. It is evident from the record that the complainant had undergone the operation of vasectomy/tubectomy on 19.05.2010 and child baby Prachi was born in the OP hospital on 07.07.11.  The complainant had undergone second operation on 07.07.11. It is evident from the medical journals that in one of the thousands such operations sometime the operation is not successful. But in this case all the OPs despite possessing knowledge of filing of the complaint have not choosen to contest or argue the matter. Copy of the reply sent by OP No.3 to the legal notice of complainant is Ex. CW-1/H. Vide this reply, the CDMO (SD) informed the counsel for complainant that AIIMS was not accredited for tubectomy operation at the time of operation and doctors performing sterilization operation were not empanelled; that AIIMS and doctors who performed that tubectomy operation were responsible for this issue. From this fact, it becomes crystal clear that the OP No.2 was not supposed to perform the operation in question. Despite that OP No.2 through OP No.1 performed the operation. Therefore, we hold that the OP No.1 & 2 were guilty of medical negligence in conducting vasectomy/tubectomy operation on the complainant on 19.05.2010.

We allow the complaint accordingly and direct OP No.2 hospital to pay Rs.1 lacs as compensation to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall become liable to pay the said amount alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.   

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 24.05.17.