- (1.) This is an unfortunate case of a woman losing her uterus - vital organ of regeneration - consequent upon an ectopic pregnancy in the cervical canal, which reason is seriously challenged, but denied equally seriously by the other side. Appellant before us filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to 'the Commission] for compensation on the ground of negligence on the part of respondents in the matter of removal of her uterus. The Commission held that the appellant has not proved negligence on the part of the respondents and dismissed the claim. Hence, this first appeal under S. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.15 lakhs for loss of uterus with no chance of future pregnancy and mental disturbance or depression leading to disharmony and tension in the family.
(2.) Facts leading to the said complaint are as follows : The appellant gave birth to a son on 6-6-1989 after caeasarean operation. On or about 3-2-1990 having suspected that she was pregnant again, she and her husband went to Lakshmi Hospital for consultation. The appellant was examined by Dr. Santha Warriar, respondent No.2. On examination, respondent No.2 informed the appellant that she was pregnant and it was decided to terminate the pregnancy for which 10-2-1990 was fixed. On 9-2-1990 lamineria tent was inserted when the appellant went to the Hospital. On 10-2-1990 the appellant, her husband and her sister-in-law went to the Hospital at about 8.30 a.m. Dr. Santha Warriar, respondent No.2, took the appellant to the labour room. At about 10 o'clock Dr. Somalatha, respondent No.3, informed the appellant's husband that the appellant was bleeding profusely and therefore, they have decided to conduct an operation. She also informed the appellant's husband that the appellant was in a very serious condition and it was better to inform her near relatives. At about 4 O'clock the operation was over and the appellant's relatives were informed that she was better but under sedation. Dr. Santha Warriar informed the appellant's husband that it was a case of Cervical Pregnancy and her uterus had been removed. The appellant was discharged from the Hospital on 22-2-1990.
(3.) The appellant complained that respondents had not acted with due care and caution required of medical professionals in diagnosing the problem, in taking care to prevent the problem, in the performance of their duties and lack of necessary facilities and infrastructure at the Hospital. The appellant pleaded that the Dilatation and Currettage (D and C) procedure was unnecessarily done on her which led to other problems resulting in loss of uterus at a very young age.;