Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sterilization operation in Sulekha Devi vs . Safdarjung Hospital on 23 February, 2015Matching Fragments
7. Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has misled the court by suppressing the fact regarding the consent form duly signed by the plaintiff along with her husband before the operation for sterilization, wherein she had been informed in vernacular that there was a minor probability of 0.4% for failure of the sterilization operation.
8. Further, the plaintiff herself did not follow the precautionary Sulekha Devi Vs. Safdarjung Hospital measures and the instructions given by the doctors as she approached the defendants only after 20 weeks and 3 days of the pregnancy. Further, the said operation was conducted on 04.07.04 and the plaintiff filed the present suit only on 03.09.10, which is hopelessly time barred. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
11. The following issues were framed for adjudication on 21.01.2012 :-
1. Whether doctors of defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff about the chances of failure of sterilization operation as 0.4% at the time of sterilization?OPD.
2.Whether plaintiff failed to take precautions as Sulekha Devi Vs. Safdarjung Hospital per the advice of defendant no.1 after sterilization operation?OPD
DECISION AND LEGAL REASONING
15. I have heard the arguments carefully and perused the judicial record.
16. My issue-wise findings are as under:
Issue no.1 and 2
1. Whether doctors of defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff about the chances of failure of sterilization operation as 0.4% at the time of sterilization?OPD.
2. Whether plaintiff failed to take precautions as per the advice of defendant no.1 after sterilization operation?
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the defendants have been able to prove that the plaintiff had given her informed consent for the operation, sterilization operation was done properly and failure was not on account of negligence by the defendants' doctors and that the plaintiff failed to approach the defendants for an abortion in time, as cautioned on account of which the child could not be aborted.