DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES Vs. KRISHNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.11.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondents-complainants direction has been given to the appellant-opposite parties to pay Rs. 60,000 as compensation to the complainants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization, to be paid jointly and severally within two months from the date of order.

(2.) Put shortly, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant No. 1 had undergone tubectomy operation on 25.1.1990 in the General Hospital, Jind. At that time the complainant Krishna Devi was assured by the doctor concerned that she would not conceive pregnancy in future. However, she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child on 5.4.1998. Thereafter, the complainant No. 1 as well as her husband-complainant No. 2 filed the present complaint alleging that the complainant No. 1 is an illiterate lady having no source of income while the complainant No. 2 is a casual labourer earning Rs. 1,000 per month. It was maintained by them that they had no sufficeint funds to bring up child because they had already three daughters and a son. Consequently, they claimed compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 from the opposite parties as per legal notice dated 5.3.1999 served upon them but no response was received by them which forced them to file the present complaint. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. In the written statement filed it was pleaded that before the sterilization operation was performed upon the complainant No. 1 no assurance was given to her that she would not conceive the pregnancy throughout her life and there were chances of failure of operation but still she had undergone the operation voluntarily. In addition, it was stated that she was also advised the preventive measures to be taken as contained in the letter bearing Memo No. 32/14-5 FW-98/830-68 dated 20.7.1998 issued by the Director General of Health Services, Haryana, Chandigarh, but she did not adhered to the advice. It was further stated that failure of tubectomy operation could arise because of the technical error to recanalization of tube and tubepertineal fistule formation for which no liability could be burdened on the surgeon. It was further stated that the Board of Directors had not found operating surgeon to be at fault. The other pleas of locus standi; estoppel; the complaint being bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties and not maintainability of the complaint in the present form were also raised. Consequently, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. Taking into consideration the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum returned a finding that sterilization operation performed upon the complainant No. 1 was due to the failure of operation by the operating doctor and further that no findings of the Board had been placed on record. Resultantly, the direction noted earlier were given in the order dated 13.11.2002. It is against the said order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite parties.

(3.) Learned Counsel representing the appellant-opposite parties has been heard at length. None has appeared to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent-complainants.