Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.     Facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint file are that the complainant had undergone sterilization operation in a family planning camp organized by the opposite parties No.1 and 2 at Kotli on 13.12.2002 and as per averments made in the complaint, opposite party No.3 was Incharge of the family planning Camp and the tubectomy operation was conducted by opposite party No.3 after taking her consent and she was assured at the time of operation that she will not have any child after 13.12.2002. The allegations in the complaint were to the effect that opposite party No.3 had not performed the tubectomy operation on her with due care and caution and as a result of negligence on his part, complainant had developed pregnancy in the year 2005 and she gave birth to a female child on 26.11.2005. Other averments are to the effect that the complainant was not interested in having any child after giving birth to a second child as she cannot maintain the third child. As such, deficiency of service had been alleged on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3. In this background, present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- had been claimed for the negligence on the part of opposite party No.3 in performing the operation, as a result thereof she had given birth to a unwanted female child after conducting of tubectomy operation.

4.     Brief result of evidence led by the parties in nutshell is that the complainant in support of her case had filed her own affidavit and placed reliance upon the certificate of sterilization operation conducted on 13.12.2002 at Community Health Centre (CHC), Kotli issued by the Medical Officer, Family Planning Camp, CHC, Kotli and certificate issued by the Panchayat Assistant, Gram Panchayat, Kot relating to giving birth of third child by her on 26.11.2005 after conducting of tubectomy operation.

7.     Mr. Anoop Sharma, learned ADA on behalf of the opposite parties had supported the order of the Forum below.

As per him, the doctor who had performed the sterilization operation upon the complainant is an experienced doctor who had done more than 5,000 tubectomy operation in his service career and there is medical literature to the effect that universal rate of tubectomy operation failure was to 0.3% and even the complainant had not taken any steps for abortion after conceiving of a child by her and record of the Health Centre reveals that she had visited Health Centre many times and opted for immunization programme.

11.                        No other point was urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in carrying out the sterilization operation as the doctor was having a vast experience in the field of sterilization operation who had conducted more than 500 operations and the doctor cannot be held negligent simply because the things went wrong. As such, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum, Mandi, in Complaint Case No.104/2007, dated 28.6.2007 and the same is upheld and consequently appeal is dismissed. Our view is also supported by the decision of this Commission given in Appeal No.190 of 2008, titled Deep Ram Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 8.5.2009. No order as to costs.