TUNI MOHARANA Vs. LIPIKA PATTASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Dr. Tuni Moharana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed her complaint of medical negligence against Ms. Lipika Pattasingh and Dr. Jyotsna Panda, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, both working in Parivar Seva Sanstha.

(2.) In her complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had contended after seeing an advertisement issued by Respondent No. 1 in various newspapers regarding the injection Depot Madroxy Progesterone Acetate (DMPA) being a safe birth control device, Appellant contacted Respondents and after being examined by Respondent No. 2 who was the Gynaecologist, she started taking the quarterly birth control injections but had to discontinue it after some time because of some adverse reactions. Later, Appellant approached Respondent No. 1 for undergoing a family planning operation but after examining the Appellant, Respondents again advised her to start taking the DMPA injection along with calcium tablets and milk to avoid any adverse reaction. Accordingly, Appellant started taking the course of DMPA injection for the second time beginning from 29.12.2001. The second injection was given on 27.3.2002 and the third injection was given on 29.6.2002. However, the 4th injection which was due on 29.9.2002, on the advice of Respondent No. 2, was given on 10.9.2002. Appellant thereafter did not take the injection on 10.12.2002 because at that time she felt some movements in her stomach and following a urine examination, she was told that she was pregnant. It was contended that this unwanted pregnancy which could have had serious repercussions on the foetus occurred because the last DMPA injection was not given on the stipulated date and, therefore, the unwanted pregnancy occurred. By that time, it was too late to undergo an abortion since according to the ultrasound examination the foetus was already 5 months old. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents who did not adhere to the three-monthly schedule for the DMPA injection and thus caused the unwanted pregnancy because of which Appellant had suffered mental, physical and financial agony. It was therefore requested that Respondents be directed to pay the Appellant a sum of Rs. 32 lakh which included Rs. 5 lakh for physical pain, Rs. 7 lakh for mental agony and pain, Rs. 10 lakh for mental shock of giving birth to an unwanted female child and Rs. 10 lakh for damages and financial expenses.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Respondents. Respondent No. 1 stated that her responsibilities as an employee of the Parivar Seva Sanstha whos" principal objective was to create awareness about family planning as also some administrative responsibilities like maintenance of registers, etc. She had no technical/medical responsibilities which were handled by doctors including Respondent No. 2 to diagnose and advice the patients regarding contraceptives suitable for them. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 cannot be held guilty for any of the allegations made against her by the Appellant.