State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Sajana Devi vs Dr.Pratap Singh Sohu on 10 August, 2010
Appeal No.444/2010 Smt.Sajana Devi,r/o Ratan Shahar(Makhar), Jhunjhunu Appellant V. Dr.Pratap Singh Sohu Medical Officer incharge PPC/MCWC Bagar, Presently posted at Govt.Bhagwan Das Khetan Hospital,Jhunjhunu Respondent Before Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mr.Sashi Kumar Pareek-Member
Shri Yogendra Singh,counsel for the appellant Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mahala,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 10.08.2010 BY THE STATE COMMISSION:
Heard at admission stage.
2. This appeal has been filed before this Commission on 25.3.2010 by the complainant appellant against the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the District Forum,Jhunjhunu in complaint no.224/07 by which the complaint filed by complainant appellant 2 was dismissed against the respondent.
3. It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent before the District Forum,Jhunjhunu on 9.8.07 interalia stating that she had got her sterilization operation performed by Dr.Pratap Singh,respondent on 19.12.05 and thereafter a card was also issued by the Department of Medical & Health and Family Planning Department,Jhunjhunu,but since she had got herself operated,the complainant appellant was facing several problems relating to womanhood and her life had become miserable and when she told about her problems to Dr.PratapSingh,respondent,he gave certain medicines and thereafter she felt some relief but again she was facing the same problems and when she again contacted Dr.Pratap Singh respondent he again gave some medicines, but her pain had become unbearable. Thereafter she got herself examined at Jeevan Jyoti hospital,Sikar where she was remained admitted on 19.2.07 upto 2.3.07 and again on 23.2.07 she was got operated again and thus a case of medical negligence was found established against the respondent as the sterilization operation which was got performed by Dr.Pratap Singh,respondent on 19.12.05 was not done properly and because of that she was facing problems and in getting the treatment in Jeevan Jyoti hospital,she had to spent a lot and for that deficiency the complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondent before the District Forum,Jhunjhunu on 31.7.08 and in the reply it was stated that since the sterilization operation was done as per the Scheme of 3 the Government of Rajasthan and at the time of operation every female was advised that in case after operation any difficulty was faced by the lady,who had been operated for sterilization she could contact the Primary Health Centre free of cost and since in the present case though the operation was done on 19.12.2005 and thereafter she had not contacted any doctor of the Govt.hospital for more than one year and if any problem was faced by her later on,for that the respondent could not be held responsible and thus there was no negligence on the part of the respondent and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 17.2.2010 had dismissed the complaint as stated above, interalia holding that the sterilization operation was got done on the complainant appellant on 19.12.2005,but there is nothing on record to prove the fact that after 19.12.2005 she had contacted the respondent doctor and further if she was got admitted in the Jeevan Jyoti Hospital,Sikar on 19.2.07 and operation was again got done on 23.2.07,for that the respondent doctor could not be held responsible and thus no case of medical negligence was found established against the respondent.
4. Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
5. In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that after the sterilization operation which was got done on the complainant appellant on 19.12.2005 by the respondent doctor and since she had taken the treatment from the respondent as she had to face many problems and that was due to false sterilization operation which was got done by the respondent doctor on 19.12.2005,therefore, a case of 4 medical negligence was found established against the respondent doctor and thus the findings recorded by the District Forum are erroneous one and be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
6. On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. In this case,there is no dispute on the point that the complainant appellant had got the sterilization operation done by the respondent doctor on 19.12.2005 under the Family Planning Programme of the Govt.of Rajasthan meaning thereby that was done free of cost.
9. There is also no dispute on the point that as per record produced by the complainant appellant she was got admitted in the Jeevan Jyoti Hospital,Sikar on 19.2.07 and was discharged on 2.3.07 and sterilization operation was again got done on 23.2.07 in that hospital and dignosis which was made by that hospital was as follows:
"Lt.side Ectepic Rlptered preg.(Chronic)"
Note:
10. No doubt,in the note sheets of that hospital,it was also mentioned that the sterilization failed done on 19.12.05.
11. The learned counsel for the complainant appellant has argued that since the operation failed,therefore,it should be taken 5 for granted that there was a case of medical negligence on the part of the respondent doctor.
Note:
12. In this case,there is nothing on record to prove the fact that after 19.12.2005 and upto 19.2.07 the complainant appellant had taken the treatment from the respondent doctor and further on file there is a sonography report dated 5.2.07 which shows that she was having the following problems:
"Enlarged Uterus No gross adnexal mass seen No ascites or enlarged lymph nodes seen"
13. In the above facts and circumstances just narrated above,the question for consideration is whether the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed could be sustained or not;
14. In our considered opinion,there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that the respondent doctor could be held guilty of medical negligence in performing the sterilization operation which was got done on the complainant appellant on 19.12.2005.
15. Had there would have been a problem just after the operation the complainant appellant must have taken the treatment from the respondent doctor,but on record there is no prescription or any thing that could show that the complainant appellant had taken the treatment from the respondent doctor after the operation got done on 19.12.2005. But on the contrary,she was admitted in the Jeevan Jyoti Hospital,Sikar on 19.2.07 and had discharged on 2.3.07 and the disease which was 6 found mentioned as stated above and that had no concern with the sterilization operation.
16. From the words that sterilization operation failed,a case of medical negligence could not be found established and at the most it could be said that the sterilization operation became unsuccessful, but for that it could not be said that it was not properly done.
17. The position of law is very much clear on the point that even in cases where the sterilization operations are done and if pregnency occurred subsequently it does not mean that there was any medical negligence on the part of the doctor who had conducted the operation.
18. There is much difference between the words failure and not done properly. In the present case at the most is a case of failure of sterilization operation, but not a case of medical negligence on the part of the respondent doctor.
19. For reasons as stated above, the findings recorded by the District Forum by which the complaint was dismissed are liable to be confirmed one as they are based on correct appreciation of evidence on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
Member President A/G