RAM KALI Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the case are that complainant No.1 is the wife of complainant No.2, Sh. Babu Ram. Complainant No.2 got himself operated for sterilization on 22.1.86 in the Employees State Insurance Hospital (ESI Hospital) situated at Basai Darapur, Delhi which is being run by the Delhi Administration. The operation was performed by Dr. V. Bhandari, defendant No.3 and the certificate was issued regarding it by Medical Supdt. of the Hospital, defendant No.2. After one week the stitches were removed by the doctor. It is alleged that they were assured that the operation was successful.

(2.) On 1st December, 1988 complainant No.1 was not feeling well. Complainant No.2 took her to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, situated at Shahdara. The doctor who examined her informed both the complainants that she i. e. complainant No.1, was pregnant at that time and carrying a four months pregnancy. Thereafter, complainant No.2 got himself medically examined to find out whether his sterilization operation was intact or not. It was found that his sterilization operation was not successful. It is alleged that the operation was not successfully performed due to the negligence of defendant No.3. Complainant No. l again visited the ESI Hospital on 20th December, 1988 and she was informed by the doctor that the vasectomy operation of complainant No.2 had failed. The complainants consequently filed a complaint for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- against the defendants

(3.) The complaint has been contested by the respondents who controverted the allegations in the complaint. They further pleaded that the State Commission under the Act had no jurisdiction to try the complaint as the complainant No.1 was not a consumer within the definition of the word as defined in Sec.2 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It Is further pleaded that the Consumer Protection Act came into force in 1987, whereas the operation was performed in January 1986. The Act is not retrospective in application and consequently the complaint can not be maintained under it.