MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE ERAL Vs. TMT. PRINCE
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2010-8-29
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on August 05,2010

Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre Eral Appellant
VERSUS
Tmt. Prince Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M. THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The respondent in this appeal, as complainant, approached the District Forum, claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs, on the following grounds. The complainant, who is married to a poor fisherman, had two female children. The complainant realizing that it may not be possible for them, to have further children, because of the poverty, had decided to undergo family planning, for which she attended the camp, conducted by the opposite parties on 13.9.2002, where after examination, 1st opposite party performed sterlisation, for which certificate also issued, assuring satisfactory sterlisation, thereby informing that there is no possibility for the complainant, to conceive again. But unfortunately, the complainant conceived in the month of December 2002, for which she approached the doctor in the month of February 2003, which was confirmed. Only because of the negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party, at the time of performing sterlisation operation, the complainant again conceived, for which not only the 1st opposite party, but also the other opposite party should be held responsible. Because of the unwanted pregnancy, which caused due to negligent operation performed by the 1st opposite party, the complainant gave birth to a female child on 20.9.2003, thereby causing mental agony and sufferings. The complainant is put to unnecessary expenses, and therefore a notice was issued, requesting the opposite party to pay compensation, for which there was no positive result. Hence the complaint.
(3.) The opposite parties opposed the claim on the following grouds: The complainant is not a consumer, and the opposite parties are not the service provider, and therefore as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party, without any pressure, on her own, and has undergone laparoscopic sterlisation, which was performed properly. The complainant appears to have not followed the proper procedure thereafter, resulting pregnancy, for which the opposite parties cannot be held responsible, as if committed deficiency in service or conducted sterlisation negligently. If at all, as per the Government Order, the complainant is entitled to only Rs.5000/-. Other averments are denied as false, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.