SUSHMA CHAWLA Vs. JASBIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against concurrent findings recorded by the Courts whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- for negligence of the appellant/defendant was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 04.02.1994 and appeal against the same was partly allowed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar.

(2.) The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that she had three children namely Sukhjeet Kaur 9/4 years, Ranjeet Kaur 6 years and Amrinder Singh 2/4 years. 4th child was born to her in the clinic of appellant on 23.03.1987. On pursuation of the appellant, she gave consent for tubectomy operation to be performed at the time of delivery. The appellant performed bilatoral tibal ligation (tubectomy) operation on 23.03.1987. She was discharged on 31.03.1987. The appellant assured the respondent/plaintiff that after tubectomy operation, she will never conceive in future. The respondent had pregnancy for the last more than two months at the time of filing suit. Had full assurance not been given by the appellant, she would not have undergone tubectomy operation. She got 5th child due to professional negligence of the appellant. The pregnancy has caused great mental agony and pain as she feels ashamed in the eyes of relatives and general public and has to undergo mental/bodily pain and sufferings to give birth to another child. The respondent calculated damages to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-.

(3.) The appellant/defendant filed the written statement and submitted that respondent was admitted in her nursing home on 23.03.1987 for delivery at 2.15 am. During examination, it was observed that she had major surgery in some other hospital during child birth. She had to be operated upon since normal delivery was not coming forth. Consent for operation was taken from her husband as it was case of high risk ranging from morbidity to mortality. Her husband gave consent for tubal ligation at 3.15 am knowing fully well that pregnancy may cause major problems to the respondent. She was operated upon for lower segment cesarean section and during operation, tubal ligation was also carried out to prevent further pregnancy. Operation was carried in the presence of Chief Anaesthetic Brgd. Daljeetam Singh, Dr. Mrs. Malwinderwant Kaur FRCS and Dr. Manjit. The patient was discharged on 31.03.1987. Her husband was explained at the time of operation that tubes are likely to slip thereby exposing chances of further pregnancy since at the time of child delivery due to enlargement of uterus, tubes get enlarged which regress to their normal size after delivery. It was denied that the appellant asked the plaintiff to go in for tubectomy operation. Operation was carried out as per standard procedure followed in her hospital. It is further denied that respondent was assured by the appellant that she will never have future pregnancy. It was also denied that appellant was negligent in performing operation. The respondent could terminate the pregnancy if the same was unwanted. All other material averments were denied and so also entitlement of the respondent to claim the disputed amount.