Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/30/2016

Geeta Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal Adv.

03 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	30 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	11.01.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	03.05.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Geeta Devi wife of Sh.Deen Dyal, resident of H.No.387, Village Balongi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab

 

             …..Complainant

VERSUS

 

1]  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (P.G.I.M.E.R., Chandigarh) through its Director.  

 

2]  Dr.V.Jain, Consultant, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE: SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

        MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA      MEMBER

        SH.RAVINDER SINGH           MEMBER

 

 

Argued by :-

 

Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Counsel for the complainant.

 

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the OPs.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH,  MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant, a housewife, was admitted in OP No.1 Hospital on 5.4.2014 with labour pain and delivered a female child on the same day and this was her third child.  It is averred that as advised by OP No.2 for abdominal tubectomy operation to become tension free and other assurances given by him, the complainant and her husband consented for the said operation.  Accordingly, the Opposite Party NO.2 performed abdominal tubecotomy operation and assured the complainant and her husband that successful sterilization has been performed and she would not conceive any child in future. Ultimately, the complainant was discharged on 8.4.2014 (Ann.C-1 colly). 

 

         It is stated that when the complainant did not have regular period in October/November, 2015, she visited OP NO.2, who confirmed her pregnancy.  It is also stated that the OP No.2 told the complainant that the pregnancy is the result of his junior doctors, who negligently not legated the fallopian tube and further that the tubes have been un-legated.  It is further stated that the complainant was prescribed medicines Misoprost 400 mg and admitted on 23.11.2015 and on that day abortion was carried out (Ann.C-2 coly).  It is submitted that the complainant had to undergo severe mental agony, bodily pain and harassment due to act & conduct of OPs in not properly following the standard procedures and protocols in carrying out of sterilization operation.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging negligence on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties NO.1 & 2 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that at the time of admission on 5.4.2014, the complainant needed caesarean section in view of fetal distress and option of undergoing tubal sterilization was given to her.  It is also stated that the complainant and her husband were informed about the element of risk in surgery and chances of failure (Ann.OP-1).  It is further stated that tubal ligation was performed in accordance with the guidelines laid by Govt. of India, after seeking consent of the complainant and her husband.  It is stated that after ligation, the cut segments of both fallopian tubes were sent for histopathology examination (HPE) which confirmed segments of both fallopian tubes (Ann.OP-2) and this establishes the fact that booth fallopian tubes were ligated.  It is submitted that the patient had been informed at the time of sterilization that if after the sterilization operation, she experience a missed menstrual cycle, then she shall report within two weeks of the missed menstrual cycle.  The complainant reported Gynae OPD (GOPD) with amenorrhea, her pregnancy was confirmed, she expressed the desire to undergo MTP.  It is submitted that the ultrasound revealed that it was intrauterine pregnancy but there was no fetal cardiac activity, so diagnosis of missed abortion was made (Ann.OP-3).  The complainant was admitted on 23.11.2015 for misoprostol administration, abortion procedure was completed and she was discharged on 24.11.2015.  It is also submitted that the complainant was never assured that the tubal ligation procedure is 100% safe and successful.  It is denied that there is any negligence or lack of care on the part of OPs.  Pleading no negligence and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The complainant was explained about risk in surgery and chances of failure of tubal sterilization and after understanding its pros and cons, the complainant along with her husband agreed to it and signed the consent form for sterilization operation in PGIMER, Chandigarh on 5.4.2014.

 

6]       The complainant has conceived again later due to her own acts and omissions, for which the PGIMER or any doctor cannot be held liable for such conception. Such sterilization operations cannot ever be cent per cent successful. 

 

7]       The doctor has performed part of her duties to the best of her ability without any bias or prejudice and done sterilization operation.

 

8]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 5128/2002 – State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram, decided on 25.2.2015, while considering the matter on identical facts, as raised in the present complaint, has observed;

 

“There are several alternative methods of female sterilization operation which are recognized by medical science of today. Some of them are more popular because of being less complicated, requiring minimal body invasion and least confinement in the hospital. However, none is foolproof and no prevalent method of sterilization guarantees 100% success. The causes for failure can well be attributable to the natural functioning of the human body and not necessarily attributable to any failure on the part of the surgeon.”   

 

9]       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment ibid held’

“Merely because a woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child.”

 

10]      Keeping into consideration the facts and circumstances, as explained in the preceding paragraphs and law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the present complaint being without merit, is dismissed.

         The copy of this order be forwarded to the parties and filed be consigned to record room.

Announced

3^rd May, 2017                               Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER