Subash Prasad vs Vidya @ Vidya Rani Singh

THE Complainant - Mr. Subhash Prasad took his wife Anita Devi to the OP -Dr. Vidya Rani Singh for Tubectomy operation, which was performed on 03.12.2000. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.1250/ - to the doctor towards fee for the operation. Patient Anita Devi developed severe pain which was persisting for six months thereafter started losing her weight and appetite. She visited another doctor, Dr. Suniti Prasad of Ara, who confirmed the patient was carrying pregnancy. Subsequently, the patient delivered a female baby on 30.04.2004 at the Clinic of Dr. Suniti Prasad. Hence, the complainant alleged that the OP had not conducted the family planning operation properly; therefore, she got conceived and gave birth to unwanted female baby child, which caused her tremendous mental agony, harassment and expenditure to bring up her 4th unwanted female child. Hence, it was deficiency and approached the District Forum for compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,85,000/ - under different heads.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that ''''Opposite Party to refund Rs. 1250/ - to the Complainant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/ - to the Complainant by way of compensation within the aforesaid period of two months. The Opposite Party shall also pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. '''' Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP preferred the First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission modified the order of District Forum and directed the OP to pay Rs. 25,000/ - to the complainant, within three months from the date of order. Therefore, against the order of the State Commission, the complainant filed this Revision Petition.

WE have heard the counsel for both the parties. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OP never conducted tubectomy operation, given only some medicinal treatment. He has brought our attention towards the observations made by the District Forum, which are reproduced as below: - ''''On the point of merit, this Opposite Party challenged the veracity of the complaint and stated that she had treated Anita Devi for some disease and had not performed the alleged tubectomy as would be evident from her prescription (annexure -2,3 and 4 of complaint) she also raised objection on the ground of age of Anita Devi whom she treated and Smt. Anita treated Dr. Sunita Prasad and claimed that the two patients may be different. She also stated that the subsequent prescription Dr. Suniti Prasad did not mention any scar mark of operation from before to substantiate the charge of the complainant. ''''

Therefore, it was negligence on the part of OP, the patient got conceived. On the contrary, the rival argument advanced by Counsel for OP argued on the territorial jurisdiction and the erroneous observations of District Forum, while the State Commission observed that OP performed tubectomy operation and there was no negligence in performing the said operation. He has also brought our attention towards the synopsis and lists of dates to in filing this Revision Petition, that the petitioner approached this Commission for enhancement of compensation due to unwanted female child. The failure of tubectomy is the known and reported complication, hence, the OP cannot be held responsible. The counsel also relied upon judgment the case of ''''State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram and Others '''' (2005) 7 SCC, Hon ''ble Supreme Court clearly laid -down that the failure of tubectomy is not the negligence and the party cannot claim the compensation.

BUT , in this case on hand, Dr. Vidhya Rani Singh is a qualified gynaecologist and possesses MD (OBG) degree. We do not find any negligence in performing sterilisation operation. Therefore, in our opinion, failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child has to decide whether to go for medical termination of pregnancy or not.Once, the womanmisses the menstrual cycle, it is expected for the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice. A reference to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, thus, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed. In our opinion, the District Forum ''s observation is erroneous that, it relied only upon the drugs prescription and concluded that OP has not performed tubectomy. We have gone through the standard medical text books on Obst. & Gynec like William obstetrics and Munro Kerr ''s operative Obstetrics, which clearly state that no method of sterilization is entirely safe even the woman undergone hysterectomy. Also there are reported cases that even after total or sub -total hysterectomy, there are chances of pregnancy (ectopic pregnancy). Therefore, in this case we do not find that failure of tubectomy is negligence. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussions we don ''t see merit in this revision, hence dismissed. No orders as to costs.