N SANDHYA RANI Vs. M KALPANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. N. Sandhya Rani representing Narayana Memorial Nursing Home, Kasibugga, Warangal being the first opposite party in CD. No.583/1992 on the file of Warangal District Forum preferred this appeal questioning the order dated 30.11.1995 passed by the said District Forum directing her to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.65,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- on the ground that she was negligent in conducting Tubectomy operation on the complainant.

(2.) The facts that gave rise to filing of this appeal are briefly stated as follows. The respondent herein being the complainant before the District Forum filed a complaint numbered as CD. No.583 /1992 alleging that she approached the appellant to have a family planning operation, that on 15.7.1989 the appellant conducted tubectomy operation, that she remained in the hospital of the appellant for about 7 days, that thereafter she was discharged on 21.7.1989 after some clinical tests were conducted at the instance of the appellant, that subsequently on 22.1.1992 she developed stomach pain and consulted the appellant for treatment, that in spite of some treatment given by the appellant there was no relief to her, that thereafter she consulted Dr. Malathi, M. D. D. G. O of the same place and the said Malathi informed her that she was pregnant, that on 14.3.1992 one Laxmi Nursing Home, J. P. N. Road, Warangal confirmed her pregnancy, that she gave birth to a male child on 26.7.1992, that because the Tubectomy operation conducted by the appellant on 15.7.1989 was failure she again underwent birth control operation on 27.9.1992 at Laxmi Nursing Home, that she suffered mental agony, inconvenience and hardship and that she is entitled to damages of Rs.75,000/-. She prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- and costs.

(3.) The appellant being the first opposite party filed a counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that she conducted the Tubectomy operation on the complainant on 13.7.1989 and not on 15.7.1989 without taking any fees; that she has good experience in conducting tubectomy operations inasmuch as she conducted thousands of tubectomy operations, that on 22.1.1992 when the complainant approached her complaining stomach ache urine test did not reveal signs of pregnancy, that there is some percentage of failure of tubectomy operations, that she adopted ,' the 'pomeroy's' technique in conducting tubectomy operation to the complainant, that the said technique consists of small longitudinal incision below the unblicus and this method is an approved method, that there is 0.2 per cent failure in tubal sterilisation using this 'pomeroy's' technique, that though the complainant was asked to come back about one week later, the complainant has not come to her, that the compensation amount claimed by the complainant is excessive, that she is not liable to pay any compensation, that she is not negligent in conducting the operation, that one Dr. Shankar Rao who is in charge of Narayana Memorial Nursing Home is a necessary party to this case and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.