Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/50/2017

Medical Officer, Govt. Women & Children Hospital - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jayasudha - Opp.Party(s)

T.Ravikumar

25 Aug 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

 

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER  

 

F.A.No.50/2017

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.19/2015, dated 27.12.2016 on the file of the District Commission, Thiruvarur.)

 

 THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST 2021.

Medical Officer,

Government Women and Children Hospital,

(Jinnah Government Hospital,

Pallivasal,

Vijayapuram, Thiruvarur.                                                     Appellant/Opposite Party                         

                                                  

                    - Vs –

Jeyasudha,

W/o. Rajinikanth,

Melmangalam,

Adhidravider street,

Vilamal, Thandalai Village,

Thiruvarur Taluk & District.                                                 Rsaspondent/Complainant          

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party              :  M/s. T. Ravikumar, Advocate.  

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant              :  M/s. S. Rajinikanth,Advocate.  

 

             This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 25.08.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant side and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

 

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. (Open Court)   

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Thiruvarur made in C.C.No.19/2015, dated 27.12.2016, partly allowing the complaint.        

2.      For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvarur.        

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal is as follows;-

          The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that she got married with one Rajinikanth on 01.09.2004 and both of them are eking their livelihood by doing coolie work. Due to wedlock, the complainant gave birth to a female child on 21.11.2005 and after two years a male child was born on 27.05.2007 and both the children was named Ranjini Devi and Ranjan respectively. After the birth of the male child on 27.05.2007, with the consent of her husband, the complainant underwent a family planning operation on 04.06.2007 in the hospital of the opposite party and was discharged from the hospital after a week.  While so, after 8 years on 10.01.2015, the complainant had again become pregnant. Hence, on 27.06.2015, she sent a legal notice to the opposite party claiming compensation to which the opposite party sent a reply on 14.07.2015 with false information stating that there is a possibility of failure in sterilisation operation to the extent of 17 to 30 persons out of 1000 persons who had undergone such operation. Since the reply was not satisfactory, the complainant filed a consumer complaint against the opposite party before the District Commission claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for deficiency in service committed by the opposite party and another sum of Rs.4,00,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant with cost of the complaint.  

4.      Denying the case of the complainant, the opposite party has filed a written version by contending inter alia that there is a possibility of 2% of failure in sterilisation operation and if 1000 persons had undergone sterilisation, there is a possibility of failure to the extent of 17 to 30 persons out of 1000 and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.    

5.       Before the District Commission, both parties have filed their respective proof affidavit in support of their case.   Exhibits A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the complainant and Exhibits B1 & B2 were marked on the side of the opposite party.  

6.        Based on the above submissions and analysing the evidences adduced by them, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant besides cost of Rs.5000/-  with default interest at the rate of 9% per annum for Rs.1,00,000/- till the date of payment. Aggrieved over the above order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the same.   

7.      When the appeal was taken-up for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant was present and the respondent was not present. Heard the learned counsel for he appellant and perused the materials available on records.  

8.       The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is quite natural a process wherein re-canalisation can occur in small percentage of cases and hence the appellant cannot be mulcted with cost and compensation.  However, the complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation as per Tamil Nadu Government’s Standing Order No.150, dated 28.05.2014 and hence he sought for setting aside the order of the District Commission by  allowing this appeal.    

9.    Keeping in mind the submissions made, we have carefully considered the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.

10.      It is no doubt that no sterilisation is foolproof and at the same time we find that before conducting the operation in the consent form Ex B1 consent was not obtained from the complainant by the opposite parties for the following the questions as mentioned in serial Nos.3 & 4 under the caption Check List is as follows; (3) Whether the client has been counselled regarding sterilisation so as to help the client make informed and voluntary decision. (4) Consent form;- Whether the client has understood contents of the consent form and signed the same?.  Had the above questions been explained to the complainant stating that there is a every possibility of failure of operation, re-canalisation, the complainant would have had an option either to undergo or not to undergo the sterilisation operation.  But since, it was not properly explained to the complainant, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party in performing the duty.  The District Commission has rightly decided the issue and allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony with default interest at the rate of 9% per annum till payment with cost of Rs.5,000/- in which we do not find any error or infirmity.

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Thiruvarur, made in C.C.No.19/2015, dated 27.12.2016.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                              PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Aug/2021