K.Sampath, President - (1.) THE opposite party in C.O.P. No. 75/2001 on the file of the District Forum, Srivilliputhur is the appellant herein.
(2.) THE complainant came forward with the case of medical negligence on the part of the opposite party, in that she did not diagnose properly: that the complainant had conceived with the result the complainant had to continue with the pregnancy and give birth to a female child. Her specific allegation against the opposite party was that she did not carry out the necessary tests to find out whether the complainant was pregnant. The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party, in that she did not ask for a urine test to find out whether the complainant was pregnant in December, 2000. In that view of the matter, the District Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 1,000 as cost.
(3.) THE necessary facts for the disposal of the appeal are as under: The complainant was admitted on 8.3.1992 in the hospital in which the opposite party worked, for delivery. She paid Rs. 1,000 as advance. She was delivered a female child on 8.3.1992. As the complainant had two children already, a male and a female, she requested the opposite party to perform sterilization operation which was done on 11.3.1992 by the opposite party for which the complainant paid Rs. 2,000; that she also paid an excess amount of Rs. 2,150 for which there was no receipt; that she was discharged on 15.3.1992. She was assured by the opposite party that she would not conceive again. However, after about 8 years, in December, 2000 the complainant missed her periods for three continuous months. She was doubtful if she was pregnant and therefore consulted the opposite party for examination. The opposite party examined her and asked her to undergo urine examination. Based on the urine test results, the opposite party informed the complainant that she was not pregnant. She also gave her medicines, tablets and tonics for getting regular menstruation. She had also received Rs. 50 as fees. After taking the medicines the complainant felt giddy and she started vomiting. In April, 2001, she went to Bharathi Lakshmi Hospital for examination. A scan was taken. The scan report dated 28.4.2001 showed that she was 20 weeks pregnant and that it was not advisable to terminate the pregnancy at that stage. The doctors at Bharathi Lakshmi Hospital informed the complainant that the medicines prescribed by the opposite party were only to abort the foetus. Because of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant could not have the pregnancy terminated in time. She, therefore, caused a notice to be issued on the opposite party for which there was no reply. She delivered a female child on 15.9.2001. The claim was for Rs. 3 lakh towards compensation for non -performing sterilization operation properly and towards mental agony, future medical expenses, maintenance of the child and Rs. 1,000 towards cost. The case of the opposite party was as follows: While advising the complainant to have a sterilization operation in 1992, the latter had been duly informed about the possibility of chances of failures in sterilization; that the complainant understood and signed the consent letter to undergo sterilization. Sterilization was performed by adopting Pomeroy technique and she was discharged on 15.3.1992 after an uneventful post -operative period. The complainant came to the opposite party in December, 2000 with complaints of vague lower abdominal pain with nausea and amenorrhoea. The urine examination for pregnancy was negative. Clinical examination also did not reveal pregnancy. Her last menstrual cycle was only in the last week of November. At the time the opposite party examined the complainant only four weeks had passed by. The opposite party asked the complainant to come back after 10 days to repeat the test for the pregnancy. She also explained to the complainant that her problems could be due to either pregnancy or some disturbances in menstrual cycle. Two options were given to her either to terminate the pregnancy or to continue with the pregnancy. The opposite party prescribed the complainant M2 Tone Uterine tonic, a Siddha medicine to strengthen the uterus and regulate the periods. The complainant as advised did not meet the opposite party after 10 days. There was no response for over 4 months until the opposite party received a lawyer notice dated 22.5.2001. Immediately thereafter the opposite party contacted the Deputy Director of Medical and Rural Health Services and Family Welfare, Virudhunagar District and sent a copy of the notice. The Deputy Director gave a reply dated 28.5.2001 stating that the complainant would be given Rs. 5,000 in the event of a child being born subsequent to the sterilization operation. A copy of the same was also sent to the complainant. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.;