MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT ESI HOSPITAL Vs. RAM AVADH PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.01.2007, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 945 of 2006, "Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Delhi v. Ram Avadh Pal" vide which, while dismissing the said appeal, the order dated 11.08.2006, passed by the District Forum, East Delhi in consumer complaint No. 395/2006, filed by the present respondent, allowing the said complaint, was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the complainant Ram Avadh Pal gave birth to a female child at ESI Hospital, Jhilmil Colony, Vivek Vihar, Delhi on 14.05.2001. After the said birth, the wife of the complainant had undergone sterilisation operation at the same Hospital, which was performed by a team of doctors, Dr. Deep Shikha and Dr. Pooja under the supervision of two specialists. A sterilisation certificate was issued to the patient vide certificate No. 226176, Code No. 78/AB dated 15.05.2001. It is stated that after some time, when the complainant's wife visited the Indira Gandhi ESI Hospital, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi for check-up on 26.09.2005, she was found to be carrying advance pregnancy for 32-34 weeks approximately. Subsequently, she gave birth to a female child on 06.10.2005 at Aashirwad Nursing Home, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, UP. It has been alleged by the complainant that they were a poor family, having meagre income and they could not afford any other child. With that purpose in mind, the wife of the complainant had got the sterilisation operation done in the year 2001, but it was a matter of great shock and mental agony for them to get another child. Alleging medical negligence against the ESI Hospital and its doctors, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the petitioners/OPs to compensate the complainant to the tune of 7.5 lakhs.

(3.) The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of 70,000/- to the complainant as compensation and cost of litigation. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioners/OP challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission. The said appeal, having been dismissed vide impugned order, the petitioner/OP ESI Hospital is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.