BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sonia, w/o Rakesh Kumar, r/o # 316, Dadu Majra, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Omni Hospital, through its proprietor/Director, SCO No. 343-345, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

2.  Proprietor/Director, Omni Hospital, SCO No. 343-345, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Rajesh Verma, Adv. for complainant.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

              The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging that she had earlier undergone tubectomy operation at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGI/MER), Chandigarh to prevent future pregnancy but subsequently she got remarried and therefore wanted another child from their wedlock.  She approached the OPs for reopening of fallopian tube, where an operation was conducted on 30.10.2007 for which a sum of Rs.26,350/- were charged from her. However, even thereafter she had not conceived and she suspected that no operation was conducted on her to open the fallopian tube and the amount has been charged by the OPs without rendering service for which they were engaged.  She then got herself checked from Dr. Sodhi`s Health Care Clinic.  According to her it was opined that no such operation has been carried out on her by the OPs to open fallopian tube.  She then served a legal notice on the OPs  and filed the present complaint.

2.           As per the authority of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India, it was necessary that the report of expert is to be called before issuing a notice to the OPs. Before proceeding further in the matter, the question was referred to the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology of P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh.

3.           We have heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have perused the record as to whether the OPs should be summoned or not.

4.           The contention of the complainant in para number 4 and 5 is that an operation was certainly conducted on her by the OPs.  In para number 7, she has alleged that it was a fake operation on her body in which the OPs cut her stomach and subsequently gave stitches without actually performing the operation. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove this allegation.  Needless to mention that before conducting an operation she was administered anesthesia and therefore she could not give any specific evidence to that effect whether after cutting her stomach, no effort was made to open the fallopian tube.  Her testimony in this respect is just a guess work which emanates from the reason that she could not conceive.

5.           The report dated 15.02.2010 received from P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh is as follows:-

“Tubal recanalisation is a major surgery in which blocked parts of the fallopian tubes are removed and healthy ends are anastamosed.  But the success of this operation depends upon many factors including condition of the fallopian tubes, site of reunion and their residual length after surgery.  According to standards for Male & Female Recanalisation issued by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (1990) and Practice of Fertility Control by S.K. Choudhary, Sixth Edition (2004), the success rate in the best programs after tubal recanalisation is approximately 70%.  Thus 30% women may not have a successful recanalisation of the ligated tubes, despite best surgical efforts.  Whenever a woman requests for tubal recanalisation surgery, this information is conveyed and a written informed consent is obtained.

As per the available record, the complainant underwent tubal recanalisation at Omni Hospital. A postoperative HSG showing blocked tubes probably reflects that the tubes did not remain open and she falls into the 30% of women in whom such surgery may not be successful.”

6.           It shows that the success rate in such cases is 70% and 30% women may not have the successful recanalisation of the ligated tubes, despite best surgical efforts.  It is further made clear in the report that the complainant falls into those 30% of women on  whom such surgery may not be successful. In view of the above report it cannot be said if the OPs after cutting her stomach did not perform operation. Otherwise also this contention cannot be believed that a renowned hospital having experienced Doctors would indulge in such a practice simply for obtaining a sum of Rs.26,350/-.  Otherwise also when the stomach had been opened there was no reason as to why the Doctors could not have proceeded further to open the fallopian tube for which the stomach was cut and opened by them.  In fact this is a natural phenomenon that this operation is not successful in about 30% of women and the complainant falls in that category.

7.           The complainant has alleged that she got opinion from Dr. Sodhi`s Health Care Clinic who has reported that no such operation was conducted on her.  We have gone through the said report Annexure C-2 but do not find any such opinion in that report.

8.           The complainant has not approached any other hospital to get the recanalisation done.  If the subsequent operation on her by some other Doctor/hospital had been successful, she could be believed saying that the OPs had not actually conducted the operation which was conducted by some other Doctor/hospital or that any such operation on her could be successful but in the present case there is no such assertion if the operation of recanalisation on the person of the complainant could be successful or that she falls out of that 30% category of women.

9.           There is no allegation nor any proof if the OPs had not proceeded in the manner they were required to proceed. Admittedly her stomach was got opened and she has admitted in para number 4 and 5 of her complaint that an operation was conducted.  In the absence of evidence or an opinion from the Doctor to support her, it is not a fit case which should be admitted for regular hearing. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed in limine.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.