Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 598.
Instituted on : 17.10.2017.
Decided on : 11.02.2022.
Pooja, aged 23 years wife of Sh. Sumit son of Sh. Sukhbir, resident of village Mokhra, Tehsil & District Rohtak. ………..Complainant.
Vs.
Nandal Nurshing Home, 112/29 Basant Vihar, Sonepat Road, Rohtak.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Parvesh Kumar Advocate for the complainant.
Shri B.S. Suhag, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.4.2017, the complainant got the sterilization operation done by Nandal Nursing Home, vide sterilization certificate no.16 dated 24.4.2017. As per advice of the doctor, she took complete treatment and rest. On dated 21.09.2017, she started having severe pain in her stomach. Her husband and her sister-in-law took her to the PGIMS Rohtak and doctor did all the tests and told the complainant that the uterus operation performed by the opposite party was not effective, due to which complainant become pregnant. The tube had already been burst and there was danger to the life of the complainant. In order to save the life of complainant, the doctors had to remove the tube of the complainant. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party, complainant has to suffer a huge mental agony and harassment. Complainant requested the opposite party to compensate her but the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant and her husband. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.950000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and defamation in the society and Rs.50000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that in fact the operation of the uterus was not performed. Instated tubectomy was done and that was performed with due care and caution. According to medical jurisprudence tubectomy is done to prevent intra uterine pregnancy. But the chances of tubal pregnancy cannot be totally ruled out. But tubal pregnancy cannot be treated as negligence on the part of surgeon. It is also submitted that in natural courses there is always a possibility of conceiving pregnancy after tubectomy operation. The complainant has not availed the efficacious remedy before filing the present suit. The complainant would have filed an appeal to the Director General, Health Services against the grievances of Civil surgeon, Rohtak, if any. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW3/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 18.9.2018. Ld. counsel for the opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and has closed his evidence on dated 23.01.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case grievance of the complainant is that the complainant got the sterilization operation done by the opposite party i.e. Nandal Nursing Home, vide sterilization certificate no.16 dated 24.4.2017. But the operation performed by the opposite party was not effective, due to which complainant became pregnant and there was danger to the life of the complainant. Hence through this complaint, complainant has sought compensation from the opposite party. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2005(4) RCR(Civil) 169 titled State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Raj Rani, as per which it is held that: “In case of failure of sterilization operation, neither the doctors nor the State could be made liable for compensation” and as per I(2008) CPJ 130(NC) titled Esakkimuthu Vs. P.Dhanam (Dr.), Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “100% proof not guaranteed in sterilization operation-Surgery can fail in exceptional cases-Compensation, as per Government Scheme offered to complainant-No negligence or deficiency in service proved-No relief entitled”.
6. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby dismiss the present complaint with liberty to the complainant to file the complaint before appropriate Authority/Competent Court of Law having jurisdiction in the matter, if so desired or advised. However, in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583, the complainant may seek exemption/condonation of delay under section 14 (2) of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remained pending before this Consumer Commission.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.02.2022
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member.
