PARAMJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint was filed in this Commission on 17.5.1993. It was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 17.8.1993. The complainants had filed an appeal in the Hon'ble National Commission. The appeal was accepted and the Order dated 17.8.1993 passed by this Commission dismissing the complaint was set aside. The matter was remanded to this Commission with the direction to take on record evidence as to whether in the hospital where tubectomy was performed on complainant No. 1 some charges were being levied on the patient and thereafter to decide the question afresh referred to above. Both the parties were called upon to produce evidence by way of affidavits/ documents. The complainants had produced the affidavits and some documents but the State of Punjab had failed to do so and was proceeded against ex parte. This complaint was again dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 3.12.1996 by holding that the complainants were not the consumers qua the respondents. The complainants again filed an appeal in the Hon'ble National Commission which was accepted by the Hon'ble National Commission vide order dated 13.12.2005 and the complainants were held as consumers. The impugned judgment dated 3.12.2006 was set aside and this Commission was directed to decide the complaint afresh after giving both the parties an opportunity to lead evidence and to decide the appeal on merits.

(2.) AFTER the matter reached back this Commission, it was brought to the notice of this Commission that Dr. Dharam Pal respondent No. 2 had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12424 of 2006 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the remand order of the Hon'ble National Commission dated 13.12.2005. The S.L.P. filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.2.2010. As a result the remand order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission dated 13.12.2005 remains intact by which this Commission was directed to decide the complaint afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. Accordingly both the parties were given an opportunity to produce whatever evidence they wanted to produce in support of their respective versions. Arguments have been heard. This is how the matter has come before us for decision on merits.

(3.) THE version of the complainants was that Paramjit Kaur complainant was the wife of Kulwinder Singh complainant. On the advice of respondent No. 2, complainant No. 1 had got herself operated for tubectomy for the purpose of family planning on 14.12.1989 in the Civil Hospital, Samrala. The tubectomy operation failed and a female child was born to complainant No. 1 on 19.12.1990. The child was born due to the medical neglig;ence of respondent No. 2 in conducting the tubectomy operation. The newly born child had become a financial burden on the complainants and Rs. 6,000 per year was required for bringing up of the child including clothing, etc. besides education expenses. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.