MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE ERAL Vs. TMT. PRINCE
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre Eral
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.