Read Time: 06 minutes

Observing that there was negligence on part of the operating doctor, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karimnagar (Telangana State) recently directed a doctor and the nursing home to pay Rs. two lakhs to a couple as compensation for failed Tubectomy operation. 

The bench comprising of Smt. K.Swaroopa Rani (President) and Smt. S. Srilatha (Member) was hearing a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for compensation and damages against mental agony. 

The aggrieved couple already had two daughters and due to economic restraints, they didn't want another child. However, even after having the sterilization operation done right after her second delivery, the woman got pregnant two years later and gave birth to a male child. 

Complaining that the unwanted newborn child had created an additional monetary burden on the family, the couple had moved the District Commission alleging that the doctor who had performed the Tubectomy operation was negligent in her act.

On the other hand, the doctor had contended that prior to conducting the Tubectomy operation she had explained to the complainant husband and his wife about the percentage of failures in family planning operation.

The doctor had also alleged that the family planning operation was conducted by well-trained doctor assisted by Trained Para Medical Staff, and several such operations had been conducted earlier also in her hospital since 1971 where there had been no instance of any failure. 

She had further argued that no method is foolproof and no prevalent method of sterilization guarantees 100% success. She had referred to authoritative test books on gynecology and empirical researches which had been carried out to recognize the failure rate and had concluded it to be 0.3% to 7% depending on the technique chosen.

However, after going through the contentions raised by both parties, the Commission noted that even though the doctor had submitted that the aggrieved woman was informed about the risks/failure rates of the procedure, there was no documentary evidence to back up the claim.

The Forum also noted that during the cross-examination the aggrieved woman had also denied that she had received any such information from the doctor.

Therefore, stating that the evidence produced by the complainant husband was sufficient to make it a case of negligence against the doctor and the hospital, the commission found that the doctor was liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency committed by her. 

Accordingly, the complaint was allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the legal proceedings.

Case Title: Bakarapu Sampath v. Dr. T. Kalpana, Gopta Hospitals, Srinivasa Nursing & Maternity Home, Peddapally, Karimnagar Dist.