O R D E R
BABU LAL, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint against O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that on 27.10.2013 the complainant was admitted in the hospital of O.P and underwent LSCS during the course of signing documents for the purpose of operation the complainant as well as her husband strongly denied for Nasbandi/ Sterilization and did not gave their consent. It is alleged that despite the denial by the complainant she was operated for Nasbandi/ Sterilization by the O.P hospital. It is also alleged that being Muslim lady the complainant was not willing for Nasbandi/ Sterilization and due to Nasbandi/ Sterilization the complainant has suffered from embarrassment from society. It is alleged that because of illegal and unlawful Acts the complainant, the complainant is facing a lot of difficulties and harassment and has been suffering a lot due to Nasbandi/ Sterilization because the complainant has lost future prospect of birth of child. It is alleged that when the complainant contacted the officials of the O.P the officials of the O.P ill-treated and misbehaved with complainant. It is also alleged that despite various request made by the complainant no positive reply has been given by the officials of the O.P and the complainant has been put to untold hardship, mental pain, agony, torture and harassment. Complainant has also sent legal notice dated 26.11.2013 but to no avail. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to pay cost and compensation as claimed.
2. O.P appeared and filed written statement. In its written statement OP has alleged that the complainant i.e. Mrs. Bushra got admitted herself for birth of child on 27.10.2013 and she delivered a male baby at the hospital. It is alleged that the complainant made a specific request for Nashbandi/ Sterilization. It is also alleged that there is no reason or occasion for the O.P to operate the complainant without her consent. It further alleged that O.P has adopted due procedure as per the guidelines and the complainant gave her specific consent by submitting the duly signed application form cum consent letter for Nashbandi/ Sterlization. It is alleged that the said application cum consent form is printed in Hindi giving clear notice of the purpose of operation as is evident from its title which is as follows “Nasbandi Operation ke liye Avedan Tatha Suchit Kiya Gaya Sahamati Patra.” It is also alleged that complainant is a literate woman conversant with Hindi and has given her consent after understanding the terms and conditions of the operations by affixing her signatures thereon along with one witness Afsar Jahan (Mother of the complainant). It is alleged that complainant was duly explained the purpose of the operation in detail and the attendant terms and conditions thereto in her vernacular language by the O.P and was also explained the procedure adopted for the LSCS for Nashbandi/ Sterilization operation. It is important to mention that as per guidelines, the operation of Nashbandi/ Sterilization can be carried out by O.P only after obtaining the consent of the applicant. It is alleged that the complainant has given her consent voluntarily as is evident from the application cum consent form for operation of Nashbandi/ Sterilization and the present complaint is only an afterthought to extract illegal money from the O.P. It is also alleged that the O.P has not adopted any unfair practice and the operation of Nashbandi/ Sterilization was conducted only on the specific request of the complainant. Dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Complainant has filed her affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. She has also proved documents exhibited as Ex. CW-1/A to CW-1/B. On the other hand Mr. Siddarth Ramj, Medical Superintendent/ C.M.O has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as stated in the written statement. Ms. Namita Jain, Senior Resident of Lok Nayak Hospital has also filed affidavit on behalf of Operating Surgeon. Parties have also filed their respective written submissions.
4. We have carefully gone through the records of the case and have heard submissions of Ld. Counsels for the parties.
5. The issue arises in this case is whether the complainant qualifies to be a consumer inasmuch as Lok Nayak Hospital is public hospital where no fee charge for treatment given to the patient including per delivery. Case of the complainant is that she paid Rs.1,416/-, therefore, she qualifies to be a consumer. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant which show that complainant paid Rs.1050/- towards room rent charges for 7 days, delivery fee has been mentioned as Rs.250/-, anesthesia and operation theatre fee has been mentioned as Rs.30/- each. So far as room charges are concerned the complainant has paid Rs.1050/- @ 150/- per day for room she has chosen to take for herself in the hospital. No amount has been charged towards medicine or doctor fee or nursing charges. Anesthesia and Operation Theatre fee of Rs.30/- each is so meager and peltry that the same cannot be taken to be a fee. It is such a peltry amount which too meager to meet the expenses which may be incurred an sanitization of the Operation Theatre and the patient herself. Therefore, we come to the conclusion the no amount has been charged for the treatment given to the complainant i.e. delivery including charges for medicines, doctor consultation fee, nursing charges or charges in respect of any other medical equipment like gauge and cotton etc. or articles which may be necessary for the purpose of delivery. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the complainant does not qualify to be a consumer.
6. The second point of the complainant is that she never gave her consent for Tubectomy and the same has been carried out by the Hospital without her consent. On the other hand, case of the O.P is that she had filled in form of the consent for Tubectomy which is counter signed by her owned mother. So far as, another documents produces on record is concerned, it is submitted on behalf of O.P that there is an interpolation in the last line where word ‘not’ has been added by putting it above the word “I am”. We have perused the record. The documents produce on record which show that complainant had undergone cesarean operation previously and she had been explain about the risk involved in the delivery. According to O.P the complainant had given her consent for Tubectomy. The last line is “I am willing for B/L Tubectomy” after the word ‘am’ word ‘not’ has been written above the word ‘am’. According to the O.P it is interpolation. However, one thing is clear that it was attested by husband of the complainant. First of all whether it is interpolation or not is a complex question of facts which cannot be decided by this forum in summary proceedings. Secondly, one thing is clear the husband of the complainant was present at the time and even if argument of the complainant is taken as provable, we are of the view that it might be because of the presence of her husband who did not want that she should undergo Tubectomy. However, the complainant is an educated lady. She has already undergone cesarean operation. She knew the complication in future if she became pregnant. O.P has placed on record the form of consent given by the complainant. It is on record. It is signed by the complainant and it has been signed by her mother herself as a witness. It is, therefore, clear that the complainant was interested to undergo Tubectomy operation when she was accompanied by her mother herself. Therefore, when the proper form has been signed by complainant and her mother herself when the husband of the complainant was not present, it cannot be said that she had signed it unwillingly. It is a free consent given by her.
7. It is important to note the argument has been advanced that the complainant has been deprived of right to beget another child and that complainant being a Muslim lady was not willing for Nashbandi and because of Nashbandi she had been embarrassed in the society. But facts remains that the complainant accepted the Rs.400/- which are given by Govt. Hospital to those willingly undergo Tubectomy operation. She gave her consent duly witness by her mother when her husband was not present. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the consent was not given by the complainant. The present complaint seems to be on the persuasion of her husband who might not be interested that the complainant should undergo Tubectomy operation and wanted to avail third chance to beget a child even though at the cost her health. We may make it clear the decision to beget or not to beget a child exclusively vests in the mother. She has willingly undergone Tubectomy operation. Therefore, the present complainant seems to be a device to extract money or sooth the hart feeling of husband of the complainant. Complaint is not entitled for any relief. Complaint is, therefore, dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties by Registered post and the file be consigned to record room.
Announced this 25th day of March, 2015.
(BABU LAL) (D.R. TAMTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
