ST. STEPHENS HOSPITAL Vs. SHALINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission ') in Appeal No.A -236/05 - St. Stephens Hospital and Anr. Vs. Smt. Shalini by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent got herself admitted in OP/petitioner 's hospital on 25.1.1998 for the purpose of delivery. She delivered a female child on 26.1.1998 and she was advised for abdominal tubectomy operation to become tension free. On 28.1.1998, operation was done and OP assured complainant and her husband that successful sterilization has been performed and she would not conceive any child in future. In September -October, 2000, complainant felt pregnancy and contacted Hindu Rao Hospital, where pregnancy was confirmed and ultimately, she gave birth to a female child on 27.7.2001. Alleging medical deficiency in sterilization operation on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint for claiming Rs.25,000/ - towards general expenses for delivery, etc., and Rs.4,00,000/ - for bringing up the unwanted child, her residence, medical attendance, treatment, day -to -day general expenses and her marriage. OPs contested complaint, filed written statement and submitted that sterilization was performed with utmost skill, due care and caution by doctor, who was possessing necessary qualifications and experience for performing the procedures. On opening the abdomen, the right fallopian tube could not be identified due to dense adhesions and right fallopian tube could not be legated. The fact was explained to the respondent and she was warned that there was a possibility of a pregnancy later in view of her unlegated right tube. It was explained to the respondent and her mother that the respondent should adopt other contraceptive methods or her husband should undergo vasectomy. The possibility of failure was recorded in the hospital records and the same were signed by the respondent and her mother affixed her thumb impression thereon. This fact clearly shows that there was no negligence on the part of the OP, as the complainant and her mother were told that due to dense adhesions the right fallopian tube could not be identified and therefore there was a chance of pregnancy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and awarded Rs.1,00,000/ - as compensation and Rs.2000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as right fallopian tube could not be identified and legated, respondent was advised that her husband should undergo vasectomy and further submitted that sterilization is not 100% safe and secure for preventing pregnancy, even then, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that Annexure 'A ' is a forged document and petitioner assured that operation had been successful and, as even after operation, respondent conceived child, learned State Commission has not committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be dismissed.