State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaswinder Singh vs Dr. Gurbir Kaur, Mbbs Of Dr. Puran Singh ... on 13 January, 2014
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 986 of 2013
Date of institution: 12.9.2013
Date of Decision : 13.1.2014
Jaswinder Singh aged about 37 years son of S. Naranjan Singh, Resident
of Sadiq, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
.....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
Dr. Gurbir Kaur, MBBS of Dr. Puran Singh Maternity & Eye Hospital,
Sethian Street, Faridkot.
.....Respondent/Opposite party
Argued By:-
For the appellant : Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for
Sh. Parvez Chugh, Advocate
First Appeal against the order dated 8.8.2013
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
ORDER
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called "the complainant") has filed the present appeal against the order dated 8.8.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot(hereinafter called "the District Forum") in consumer complaint No. 40 dated 6.5.2013 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant on the allegations that on 6.1.2012, the wife of the complainant, namely, had given birth to female child and at the time the Ops conducted FIRST APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2013 2 Tubectomy operation of his wife and as per the Ops the operation was successful and they had charged Rs. 30,000/- from him besides Rs. 20,000/- spent by him on the medicines. But lateron in the month of December, 2012 he became suspicious about the pregnancy of his wife. In the test, it was confirmed and was in the 8th month of pregnancy. His wife was going to give birth to the 4th child and being a poor person, they are unable to extend the family, therefore, there is deficiency on the part of the OP, who committed negligence in conducting the operation, accordingly, he has demanded Rs. 5 lacs as compensation.
3. The complaint was contested by the OP, who filed reply stating that the operation is not 100% successful, no money was charged by the Ops to conduct the operation, they had charged just Rs. 12000/- as operation charges and for medicines. In case the wife of the complainant was not to give birth to the child, it could be aborted and accordingly, it was stated that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OP, the complaint is mis- conceived, therefore, the same be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1 & 20, copy of ration card Ex. C-2, certificate of Tuberctomy Ex. C-3, copy of pregnancy urine test Ex. C- 4, colour Doppler Test Ex. C-5, receipt regarding payment of delivery Ex. C-6, Exs. C-7 to C-12 bills, Ex. C-13 Prescription Slip, Ex. C-14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2013 3 discharge slip, Exs. C-15 to C-17 prescription slips, Exs. C-18 & 19 Diagnostic Tests.
5. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the OP, evidence and documents brought on the record and after relying upon the judgment 2005 (4) RCR (Criminal) 93 "State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram and Ors." wherein it was observed that there are several alternative methods of female sterilization operation, some of them are complicated whereas others are not but it is not full proof and there is no 100% guarantee for the success and failure rate is 0.3 to 7%, accordingly, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
6. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
7. During the course of arguments on the admission of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant could not justify that sterilization operation is 100% success and its failure chances are 0.3 to 7% as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, therefore, it is not the case of negligence. In case there was conceivement of the child of the complainant, the finding so recorded by the learned District Forum that these operations do not give 100% guarantee and failure rate is 0.3% to 7% are correct and the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to cite any contrary law to convince this Commission, how the order passed by the learned District Forum is incorrect.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 986 OF 2013 4
8. It has been further contended by the counsel for the appellant that there are instructions of the Government of India that in case such an operation is un-successful then they make payment of Rs. 30,000/- but however, no such instructions have been cited before this Commission. In case there are any instructions, he can prefer his claim before the Competent Authority and it does not require any intervention from the Commission.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any merit in the complaint; the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
10. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
January 13, 2014. (Vinod Kumar Gupta)
as Member