This complaint coming before us for hearing, in presence of  Sri. Y. Ramesh & V. Lingaiah, Advocates for the Complainant, and in the presence of Government Pleader for Opposite parties 1 to 4; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O R  D  E  R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is having two male children.  She, along with her husband had decided to undergo family planning operation, approached the opposite party No.1 and registered her name.  Accordingly, On 21-06-1999 the Opposite party No.1 performed tubectomy operation at Rural Family Welfare Centre, Thirumalayapalem, Khammam district.  The opposite party No.2 issued sterilization certificate through opposite party No.1. The complainant led happy marital life for 11 years.  Thereafter, she felt ill health and admitted at Lumbini Hospital, Khammam, after conducting necessary tests, the doctors stated that the complainant was got three months pregnancy.  The complainant further submitted that she gave birth to a female child on 11-08-2010 at Lumbini Hospital, due to which, she became very weak and unable to attend household works.  The newly born baby was also suffered from health problems due to belated pregnancy.  The complainant alleges that the opposite parties No.1 to 4 conducted the operation negligently to reach their targets.  She also stated that she spent more than Rs.20,000/- towards monthly checkups and after having knowledge about the pregnancy, she also spent more than Rs.20,000/- towards expenses and hospital charges.  She lost her earnings during the period of pregnancy and post pregnancy, due to which, suffered a lot and issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 16-08-2011.  But the opposite parties denied all the allegations, leveled against them through their reply notice.  Having no other go, compelled to file the present complaint by praying to award Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and costs. 

3.       To prove her averments the complainant filed Chief Examination Affidavit and exhibits A1 to A5.

4.       On receipt of notice, the opposite party No. 1 filed counter through its counsel by denying the averments of complaint and submitted that in general, failures are common in sterilization operation, the same was explained to the complainant before conducting operation.  If she got unwanted pregnancy, the termination of pregnancy is permissible within 20 weeks under termination of pregnancy act 1971.  The complainant knew about the pregnancy in the 12^th week but she did not opt to go for termination.  The complainant failed to produce any medical record or expert opinion to establish the negligence of surgeon, failure of operation cannot be construed as medical negligence.  Therefore, there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.       The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 filed a memo by stating that to treat the contents of counter of opposite party No.1 as their counter. 

6.       In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-        

According to the contents of complaint and counter and basing on the material on record, it is clear that the complainant had voluntarily given her consent for conducting sterilization operation, done by opposite parties at Mandal Head Quarters Hospital, Thirumalayapalem, Khammam district.   The opposite party No.1 performed sterilization operation on 21-06-1999.  In the month of March, 2010, the complainant felt ill health and confirmed as pregnant at Lumbini Hospital, Khammam and on 11-08-2010 she gave birth to a female child, alleging medical deficiency in sterilization operation on the part of opposite parties by filing the present complaint.  On the other hand the opposite parties contested the case and averred that they have explained all the consequences to the complainant regarding the failures in sterilization before performing the operation.  She did not opt for termination after confirmation of pregnancy and failed to establish the negligence on the part of opposite parties by producing any medical record.  Therefore, denied their liability as there was no deficiency in conducting sterilization.  After considering all the facts and circumstances it is clear that after conducting of sterilization, the complainant led happy marital life till confirmation of pregnancy i.e. the complainant was conceived after 11 years from the date of sterilization, according to medical literature, the sterilization is not 100% safe and secure.   So, after getting knowledge of conception inspite of having undergone the sterilization operation, if the couple opts for baring the child, its ceases to be an unwanted child.  Accordingly, compensation for any loss cannot be claimed.  Moreover, after confirmation, the complainant did not follow any steps for termination of pregnancy,  she waited till delivery and it appears that as female child was delivered, thereafter, she filed the complaint, which is not fair on her part, if she was not willing to bear the child, she could have terminated it as this is legal and permissible under medical termination of pregnancy act 1971 and if she opted for bearing the child, she cannot opt for compensation for any loss, the Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same in St. Stephen’s Hospital & Anr. Vs. Shalini III (2013) CPJ 217 NC.  In the light of above decision and in view of the afore stated facts we are of the opinion that there is no liability on the part of opposite parties as there is no negligence or deficiency in sterilization operation.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.    

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs. 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March, 2016.

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

          Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum, Khammam