SHIKHA vs ASHOKA JINDAL

THIS revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana whereby the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as follows :

THE complainant, a school teacher, went to the opposite party, a Private Nursing Home, to undergo tubectomy operation. It is alleged that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/- to the nursing home as operation charges for which no receipt was given by the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that she had again conceived due to the failure of the operation performed on her by the opposite party and prayed for Rs. 1 lakh as compensation. On notice being served, the respondent filed its reply contending that the complainant was not a consumer as no consideration was received by the opposite party since the said operation was performed free of charge and that too under National Programme of Family Welfare. It is also contended by the opposite party that the operation was conducted by ''Pomeroy Method'' and the failure rate is only 0.4% and that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Both the parties had filed their affidavits with the supporting documents. THE District Forum upon hearing both the parties, adverting to the documents filed by both the sides, held that the complainant was a consumer as no private clinic renders free service to the patients. THE District Forum further held that the opposite party in its reply as well as in its affidavit admitted that the operation was conducted by ''Pomeroy Method'' and the failure rate is 0.4% and that according to the material produced by the opposite party the failure rate was shown as 0.1%. In view of the above discussion the District Forum held that the failure of operation of tubectomy amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite party went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission in its order observed as under : "We have heard the Counsel for the appellant and have also perused the impugned order. From the record, the Commission has observed that the complainant has nowhere given the date of delivery. Further, neither sex of the child was given nor any entry from the office of the Register (Birth & Death) was given. Since no proof of birth of the child has been given, the District Forum ought not to have allowed the complaint. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is quashed and the complaint is dismissed."

In view of the above reasoning, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.

Not feeling satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the complainant has come in revision before us. Having perused the papers before us we feel that no expert evidence is brought on record to show that the operation was not carried out as it should have done. Moreover, even if there is no negligence there could be a case of stray pregnancy taking place as is shown that failure rate is 0.4% of case. Therefore, it was imperative that expert evidence should have been led to show lapse on the part of the Doctor concerned. That having not been done, no relief could be granted. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in the circumstances of this case. The Revision Petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.