PREMLATA DHAKONIA Vs. DHEERAJ GARHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the husband and wife alleging deficiency in service by the respondent on account of failed operation of tubectomy on Premlata, first appellant, who is the wife of the second appellant. On complaint filed by the appellants claiming damages amounting to Rs. 6,20,000/- Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the same holding that there was no negligence on the part of the respondent Dr. Dheeraj Garha.

(2.) On 3.4.1986 at the time of delivery of the second child, a girl which was caesarean delivery tubectomy operation was also carried out on the first appellant by the respondent. It is alleged that in spite of tubectomy operation first appellant got pregnant in the year 1996 after 10 years of the operation and she delivered a girl child on 15.11.1996. For this appellants claimed Rs. 6,20,000/- as damages from the respondent out of which Rs. 4.00 lakhs are claimed towards education and marriage expenses of the new born.

(3.) The fact that tubectomy operation was performed on the first appellant to prevent any pregnancy, is not disputed and since in spite of that first appellant became pregnant negligence is attributed to the respondent. It is not that there is any other evidence to allege negligence.