State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Anshu Singh Bhadauriya vs Arogya Sadan Nursing & Maternity Home on 23 March, 2022
M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
APPEAL NO. 646/2015
Smt. Anshu Singh Bhadouria
W/o Shri Dinesh Singh Bhadouria,
R/o Village Syadha, P.S. Umri
Pargana
District Bhind (M.P.) ... Appellant
Vs.
1. Director, Arogya Sadan Nursing
Avem Prasuti Grih,
Old Pachasa Line,
Bhind (M.P.).
2. Smt. Dr. Krishna Sharma
Through Arogya Sadan Nursing
Avem Prasuti Grih,
Old Pachasa Line,
Bhind (M.P.).
3. Dr. S.L. Sharma
Through Arogya Sadan Nursing
Avem Prasuti Grih,
Old Pachasa Line,
Bhind (M.P.). ... Respondents
BEFORE;
HON'BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER.
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. BANSAL, MEMBER.
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
SHRI PARAG KALE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT.
SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT.
: 2 :
ORDER
( 23.03.2022 ) The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr. Monika Malik, Member.
This appeal by the complainant /appellant, is directed against the order dated 5.6.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhind (for short 'the District Commission'), in complaint case No. 09/2015, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant.
2. Briefly put the facts of the case, as narrated by the complainant/appellant, are that the complainant after delivering a child on 7.11.2009 had underwent a sterilization operation, for which she had paid Rs.25,000/-. It is alleged that the aforesaid sterilization operation was unsuccessful and she again got pregnant in the year 2013 and delivered a child on 6.7.2014. The complainant alleged deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/respondents, for being negligent in conducting the sterilization operation and filed the aforesaid complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation.
3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint stating that they had never performed any sterilization operation on the complainant. On 7.11.2009, she delivered a child after caesarian operation. The complainant would never have approached the opposite parties, regarding delivery of another child on 6.7.2014, as she did, if the opposite parties had : 3 : performed a sterilization operation on her, which turned out to be unsuccessful. Further it is stated that any surgery is not completely successful and there are chances of failure and the opposite parties are not deficient in service in the instant matter.
4. Learned counsel for complainant argued that complainant/appellant had paid Rs.25,000/- for sterilization operation, of which she received receipt of Rs.15,000/- only. The complainant/appellant become pregnant even after conduction of that operation, which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/respondents. The complainant/appellant never wanted a third child, however, due to failure of the sterilization operation she became pregnant and had to bear another child. The complainant/appellant is compelled to incur expenses for raising the child and therefore, she had filed the complaint seeking compensation Rs.18 lacs with Rs.1 lac towards mental agony and other expenses, from the opposite parties/respondents but the same has been erroneously denied by the District Commission. Learned counsel for complainant/appellant argued that this appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for opposite parties argued that no amount was ever charged for conduction of any sterilization operation. Only a sum of Rs.20,000/- was received from the complainant/appellant on 4.9.2014 and that was only for caesarian delivery. He argued that there is chances of 4-5% failure in any operation and the surgery is not always 100% successful. He argued that the District Commission has rightly : 4 : passed the impugned order and this appeal filed by the complainant/appellant deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard. Perused the record.
7. After careful perusal of the record District Commission, we find that it is rightly held that the evidence on record does not suggest that the complainant/appellant had paid charges for undergoing a sterilization operation to the opposite parties/ respondents, as alleged by the complainant/appellant. Further, it is observed that even if sterilization operation is held and it is not successful, the medical practitioner cannot be held liable in such matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Shivram & Ors. IV (2005) CPJ 14 (SC), has clearly laid down law in the matter and has made an observation that merely because a woman having undergone a sterilization operation becomes pregnant, does not mean that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in preforming surgery. It is further held that simply because the operation failed, does not entitle woman to claim compensation. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Union of India vs. Om Wati IV (2012) CPJ 778 NC has also followed the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab vs. Shivram & Ors. (supra). The District Commission has also passed the impugned order relying on the judgment passed by National Commission in the case of Union of India vs. Om Wati (supra), which is equitable. Therefore, there is no ground for attributing any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/respondents.
: 5 :8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we conclude that there is no error or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission. It is, therefore, affirmed.
9. This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
(DR. MONIKA MALIK) (S.S. BANSAL)
PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER
Mercy