- (1.) The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The complainant, belongs to middle class family. The complainant approached the opposite party to undergo family planning operation and after consultation on 17.4.2001, the complainant underwent "Bilateral Tubectomy" in opposite party clinic. The opposite party had issued a certificate dated 17.4.2001 where she had given a guarantee that the complainant will not conceive on the ground that "Uterus" cannot allow any conceivement. The complainant?s husband Thiagarajan died on 11.5.2003 and the complainant during her second marriage LIFE with her husband?s younger brother Selvaraj, she had noticed some changes on her body and undergone for medical test and the scan report on 19.12.2004 revealed that again the complainant had conceived to her shock and from the scan report, it was found that enlarged gravid uterus shows a single viable fetus which sonological age corresponding to 13-14 weeks. The failure of the tubectomy operation is due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the opposite party which amounts to deficiency of service on her part. The above development of the child tin the complainant?s womb was solely due to the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and she is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for carrying the unwanted child in law and on facts and the opposite party is liable to bear the cost for maintaining the said unwanted child. One Dr.R.Chandramohan has issued a certificate on 29.3.2005 in which he certified that even after tubectomy no person will become pregnant. Hence an award sought directing the opposite party (1) to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant towards maintenance of the child and (2) to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for her sufferings and for mental agony and discomfort and award costs.
(3.) The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in the written version stated that the complainant was also put in notice of the fact that there are chances for failure of the family planning operation and if the monthly menstrual period skips for 2 weeks they have to report to the nursing home immediately for performing a pregnancy termination and performing a re-operation without any charges as advised by the Government of Tamil Nadu. In such an event it will pay compensation to the person. The consent letter signed by the complainant and her husband and a copy of the same also given to the complainant, she was also explained of all these facts. While the facts are so, the complainant after finding that the menstrual period skips for more than 2 weeks ought to have reported the matter either to the opposite party or to the nearest Government Hospital. The complainant did not avail the facility granted by the Government and having failed to do so it is not open to the complainant to accuse the opposite party that there was negligence in the surgery. There was no negligence in the conduct of the family planning operation. Failures in family planning surgery are an accepted phenomenon by leading gynecologists. Therefore it is false to say that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party in performing the family planning operation. Thiru.Dr.Chandra Mohan is not a gynecologist to give a certificate certifying that after tubectomy no person will become pregnant. The family planning operation was not due to any negligence but it was due to some natural causes. In those circumstances the claim of the complainant for payment of Rs.8 lakhs as compensation for maintenance of the unwanted child and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation is not sustainable from any of the matter. The complaint is a malafide and devoid of merits has to be dismissed.;