MADHU RANA Vs. BIMLA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Bimla Gupta, referred to as the complainant, had undergone secondary sterility with previous two LSCS (Lower Segment Ceasarean Section) on 25.8.1978. She had only one female child alive and became desirous of having another child. Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rana, Prop, of Rana Nursing Home, arrayed as opposite party after examination of the complainant, gave her an assurance that after re-canalisation operation, which would cost about Rs.12,000/- she would be able to conceive. The complainant paid the fees and was admitted to the Nursing Home on 7.5.1991. She was operated upon and discharged on 15.5.1991. She was advised to come to the Nursing Home after three months so that the result of the operation could be confirmed. She, accordingly, reported on 5.8.1991. An X-Ray was taken which showed left- side tube open but right-side tube blocked. The complainant then got herself X-Rayed at West Delhi Clinic on 16.9.1991. She underwent a third X-Ray on 13.10.1991 at Janta x-ray Clinic. Both the X-Rays taken by West Delhi Clinic and Janta X-Ray Clinic show the left side tube to be partially or completely blocked. In the entire process the complainant had to spent Rs.18,813/-. She approached District Forum for award of compensation amounting to Rs.65,000/-.

(2.) The plea of the opposite party before the District Forum was that no assurance of 100% pregnancy had been given. The operation had been duly performed and the fallopion tubes on both sides had been recanalised. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service. On a consideration of the matter, the District Forum further held that the opposite party had held out an assurance of 100% pregnancy which appears to have impelled the complainant to undergo the operation. With these findings, the opposite party was directed to refund Rs.18,813/- besides compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- in addition to Rs.1,000/- as costs. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the parties/counsel. Alongwith the appeal a diagram has been filed as Annxure IV. This would greatly help in understanding and appreciating the facts of the present case. The tube of the uterus branches off into two fallopion tubes going on the left side and right side of the lady. The middle portion of the said tube is called isthmus. The distal or far ends of that tube is called fimbria. The procedure undertaken for tubectomy has been explained in the affidavit of Dr. (Mrs.) Madhu Rana, filed before the District Forum, the fallopion tube called isthmus is clamped and two sides of the clamp are tide with an appropriate cord and then in between the two tide points, tube is cut through and through on both sides. This prevents the sperms travelling through the isthmus to fertilise the egg from the overy. Tubectomy in the present case was carried out on 25.8.1978. The re- cancellation operation was carried out in May, 1991. After the re-canalisation operation three X- Rays were taken, one at the opposite party's Nursing Home and two others at other clinics as already stated. The relevant reports read as under :