1. Heard Mr. Raj Narayan A.S., Advocate, for the petitioners. 2. Above revision has been filed against the order of Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dated 09.11.2021, passed in First Appeal No.178 of 2014 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore, dated 29.01.2014 passed in CC/460/20102), whereby District Forum has dismissed the complaint and the State Commission also dismissed the appeal. 3. R. Ravi and R. Kumudhavalli filed Consumer Complaint No.460 of 2012 with the District Commission for directing the respondents to pay (a) Rs.575000/- as compensation for upbringing the child; (b) Rs.100000/- for mental harassment; and (c) Rs.25000/- for litigation cost. 4. The complainants are husband and wife, opposite party No.1 is a hospital and opposite party No.2 is a Doctor working in opposite party No.1. Case of the complainants is that on 24.04.2012, the complainants visited the opposite party No.1/Hospital. On the advice of opposite party No.2, the complainant No.2 was admitted in the hospital on 24.04.2012 for undergoing family planning operation. Pre operation tests were done on 24.04.2012 itself and opposite party No.2 conducted the operation on 25.04.2012 and the patient was discharged on 26.04.2023. The complainants also visited the hospital for post operation check up on 01.05.2023 and 03.05.2023. Complainant No.2 noticed that she did not get menstrual cycle, therefore, she again visited the hospital and Ultra Sonography was conducted wherein it was found that she was having a matured foetus of 18 weeks and 4 days. According to the age of the foetus, complainant No.2 was pregnant even on the date when family planning operation was conducted. On 07.09.2012, the complainants approached KMCH Hospital and they were informed that since the foetus had grown up to 20 weeks, they were not permitted to abort it. The complainants are poor person. Having no other option, complainant No.2 delivered the child. On 24.09.2012, the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the complainants filed Consumer Complaint No.460 of 2012 with the District Commission. 5. The complaint was contested by the respondents by filing the joint reply stating that opposite party No.1 is a reputed hospital in Coimbatore and approved by the Government of Tamilnadu for conducting the family planning operation. Opposite party No.2 was having an experience of 10 years for conducting such operations. Before conducting the operation, the complainants were fully briefed by the Doctors about the operation and its success/failure. After full satisfaction, the complainants have given their consent for the operation. After it was found that complainant was pregnant even after family planning operation, the opposite parties offered that termination of the foetus would be conducted free of cost if they desired. The complainants stated that they would decide and come again after two days. Thereafter, the complainants did not approach the opposite parties and instead sent a legal notice. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. District Commission, vide order dated 29.01.2014 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the complainants filed First Appeal No.178 of 2014, which was also dismissed, vide impugned order dated09.11.2021. Hence the present revision petition has been filed by the complainants. 6. The only issue involved in the case is whether the opposite parties performed the family planning operation without taking proper pre-operative care. When the patient came to the Doctor, it was found that CU-T was removed only on 24.03.2012. She was advised to come for operation on completion of 5th day of menstrual cycle. She was also advised not to have intercourse as there was likelihood of conceiving upon removing of CU-T. Had the petitioners followed the advice of the Doctor, petitioner No.2 would not have become pregnant. Further, on the date of operation, urinary gravandix test was also done to ascertain the pregnancy and the report was negative. Some other tests were also conducted which were found to be normal. When the opposite parties were informed that complainant No.2 had a foetus of 18 weeks 4 days, they offered for termination of pregnancy free of cost which was permissible at that time under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The complainants chose to give birth to the child. The sequence of events shows that the opposite parties have followed the due procedure before conducting the operation and they also showed their bona fide in offering termination of pregnancy free of cost. Pre operation advice given by the Doctor is not disputed by the petitioners. Both the Fora below have returned concurrent findings of fact, which do not suffer from any illegality. Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 and Loudres Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel Vs. H & R Johson (India) Ltd. (2016) 8 SCC 286, held that National Commission has no jurisdiction to set aside concurrent findings of facts recorded by two foras below, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. O R D E R In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. |
