C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/61
COMPLAINANT : Rahima Bibi
W/o Kurman Mandol
Vill. Kachkali, P.O. Dharmada,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) Medical Officer,
Dharmada Hospital
Vill. + P.O. Dharmada,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
2) Block Medical Officer,
Bethuadahari B.P.H.C.
Vill. + P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 10th August, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that up to 2002 she gave birth to 4 children. Thereafter, she decided to go under tubectomy operation. Accordingly, tubectomy operation was done upon her on 15.03.02 by the OPs. Subsequently, on 12.02.09 she gave birth to a male child from which it is established that tubectomy operation was not done successfully due to which she conceived after this operation. She being a poor lady and having 4 children went under tubectomy operation, but to no effect. So having no other alternative she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OPs appeared and prayed for time to file written version but subsequently, no written version was filed by them. So the case was fixed for exparte hearing.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On the side of the complainant two documents are filed which are marked as 'Annexure – 1 & 2’ respectively. 'Annexure – 1’ shows that this complainant Rahima Biwi went on tubectomy operation on 15.03.02. 'Annexure – 2’ shows that this complainant gave birth to a male child on 12.02.09 i.e., after a period of about 7 years since the date of her operation. Now the question is whether this complainant is entitled to get any compensation from the OPs due to failure of tubectomy operation conducted by the OPs and actually there is any negligence on the part of the OPs. It was decided by the Hon'ble National Commission in a case reported in 1 (2008) CPJ 460 (NC) wherein Hon'ble National Commission decided “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Medical negligence – Tubectomy Operation – Failure of – Deficiency in service alleged – Fact that complainant conceived and gave birth to child, not sufficient to attract principle of res ipsa loquitur – Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claiming compensation – Doctor not expected to give 100% guarantee of success of operation – No relief entitled – Director of Medical Services, Family Planning and Welfare Department should consider case for ex gratia payment.” On a careful perusal of this above cited ruling, we hold that it is applicable in the instant case also as in this case it is the allegation of the complainant that after tubectomy operation on 15.03.02 she conceived and gave birth to a male child on 12.02.09. In view of this above cited ruling we do also hold that as there is no guarantee of success of operation, so this complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. In result the case fails.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/61 be and the same is dismissed exparte against the OP without any cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
