Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Argued by: Ms. Saloni Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.05.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.      The facts, in brief, are that that complainant was having a daughter and a son. Thus, she alongwith her husband decided that their family was complete. The complainant approached the Opposite Parties (now respondents) for sterilization operation, whereupon, she was assured by them, that she would not conceive a child, after three stitches operation. The complainant and her husband gave consent for three stitches sterilization operation. The complainant was admitted, in the Opposite Parties Hospital, for the said purpose, on 12.10.2003. After surgery/sterilization operation, the complainant was discharged on 17.10.2003, vide discharge certificate, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. As per the complainant, the Opposite Parties, charged an amount of Rs.1500/-, from her, for the said operation. It was stated that, thereafter, nothing happened, and all of a sudden, in the year 2011, the complainant suffered some medical problem and consulted the Doctor. The Doctor advised her to undergo some medical tests, as he was apprehending pregnancy.

14.   Admittedly, the complainant underwent sterilization operation, on 12.10.2003, in the Hospital of the Opposite Parties. She was discharged on 17.10.2003, vide discharge certificate, copy whereof is Annexure C-1. She conceived a child, in the end of 2011. The question, arises, as to whether, the sterilization operation could be said to be 100% foolproof, after which, there could not be conception. There is nothing, on the record, that the Doctors who conducted the sterilization operation upon the complainant, did not exercise reasonable skill and care. As per the literature of Dr.D.C.Dutta Annexure OP-1, the reported failure rates following female sterilization ranged from 0.2% to 0.9% (infact 0.6%). According to the Opposite Parties, the patients are duly informed about the chances of failure of such operations, in certain cases. In this case, the complainant did not conceive for 8 years. Therefore, it could not be said that the Doctors performed the operation without exercising reasonable skill and care. Sterilization operation could not guarantee 100% success. No expert evidence was produced by the complainant that the doctors who performed the operation were negligent, in any manner. Thus, the medical negligence, on the part of the Doctors was not proved. In State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram and others (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1, it was held as under :-

26. The cause of failure of the sterilization operation may be obtained from laparoscopic inspection of the uterine tubes, or by x-ray examination, or by pathological examination of the materials removed at subsequent operation of sterilization. The discrepancy between operation notes and the result of x-ray films in respect of the number of rings or clips or nylon sutures used for occlusion of the tubes, will lead to logical inference of negligence on the part of the gynaecologist in case of failure of sterilization operation.

Since, she opted for giving birth to a female child, of her own volition, the Opposite Parties could not be fastened with any liability.

17.   The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, however, placed reliance on State of Haryana and ors. Vs. Smt. Santra, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1888, in support of her contention, that the complainant conceived, on account of the medical negligence of the Doctors of the Opposite Parties, even after sterilization operation. The facts of State of Haryana and ors.` case (supra), are clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. In that case, medical negligence of the Doctor, who conducted sterilization operation, was proved. It was, under these circumstances, held that since the Doctor was negligent, in performing the sterilization operation, resulting into conception, the State of Haryana and others were liable to pay compensation/damages, to the complainant, for birth of an unwanted child, upto the age of puberty. The facts the State of Haryana and ors.` case (supra), being clearly distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case, no help can be drawn, by the Counsel for the appellant therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, therefore, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.