SHANTI vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research

SHANTI, complainant-1 is wife of Mohal Lal, complainant- 2 and they reside at Chandigarh. They have one son aged 12 and a daughter aged 8. However, being a couple of small means, it was decided that SHANTI aged 33 shall undergo sterilisation. She was admitted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGI), Chandigarh on 5.6.1995 and operated upon for the aforesaid purpose on 6.6.1995. It was ultimately realised that the operation did not prove successful because SHANTI again had pregnancy, the third child another son was born on 29.8.1996 in the PGI itself. It has been averred that this third child is a sheer burden not only on the complainants, but also on the society. She also had ill health after the operation though she went to the PGI for post-operation examinations as well and alleged that there was negligence on the part of Dr. Urmil, respondent-2, who allegedly performed the operation and the PGI, respondent- 1as a whole. A claim of Rs. 20.00 lacs has been put forward.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the two respondents, wherein it has been averred that the sterilisation operation was performed systematically and carefully, yet pregnancy after sterilisation was not unknown. It has further been averred that there was no side effect of the surgery and the plea that Shanti had been keeping weak or ill-health after the operation, has been denied. She was given special care in the clinic of Medical Surgical Disorder of the PGI. Her Haemoglobin in July, 1995 was 12 gm. and there was no weakness at any stage. The complainants did deposit Rs. 305/- in the beginning, but after the operation, it was refunded and a further sum of Rs. 100/- was paid as a kind of reward for family planning. The application for sterilisation operation (Ex. R1) shows that Shanti was admitted to the PGI, Chandigarh with the consent of her husband Mohan Lal and the operation in question was performed. After the completion of the operation, the abdomen was closed.

As seen above, it is obvious that in this case, the operation was not successful. In this regard, learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn our attention to Standards for Male and Female Sterilisation published by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, and its relevant part is reproduced as under : 1. Counselling/informed consent/ eligibility. 1.1.Counselling for Voluntary Sterilisation. The following steps must be taken before a Sterilisation client signs a consent application : xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.1.4(g) It has a small chance of failure. 1.3. Eligibility Criteria. xxxx xxxx xxxx 1.3.5. The client or spouse must not have undergone previous sterilisation. (This condition may be waived in case of failure of the previous operation). 2. Standards for female sterilisation : The counselling, informed consents, and eligibility standards in Section 1 apply to both male and female sterilisation acceptors".

This goes to show that the chance of failure of the operation could not be ruled out totally.

THE learned Counsel for Dr. Urmil, respondent-2 has pointed out that she was not at all associated with the operation and her name does not find mention in the report of operation which contains the particulars of the patient and the Surgeons, Anaesthetists and other assistants. THE name of Surgeon mentioned therein is Dr. Mandakini, who has not been impleaded as a party and did not have the occasion to explain her position. So far as Dr. Urmil, respondent-2 is concerned, she only issued a sterilisation certificate which was a kind of office job. She was not associated with the operation. As seen above, it appears that such operations were not cent-percent successful. Besides this, there is no substantive evidence to show any negligence and in absence thereof, it cannot be said that the requirement of deficiency has been established. The conclusion is that the complaint fails and it is hereby dismissed. Complaint dismissed.