Failed Tubectomy: Consumer Court Directs Nursing Home, Doctor to Pay Compensation

"In view of our aforesaid discussion, we feel that the opposite party was negligent while conducting sterilization operation on complainant's wife the citation filed by the opposite party is not proper to consider, and therefore is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency committed by her," observed the Commission.

The history of the case goes back to 2009 when the wife of the complainant had undergone a Tubectomy operation at the treating doctor who had also performed her second delivery. The doctor had also issued a sterilization certificate by receiving an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards delivery and Tubectomy operation.

Also Read: Karnataka: Woman dies during tubectomy operation, inquiry ordered

However, after two years, the complainant took his wife to a PHC for irregular periods where on the suggestion of the duty doctor she underwent a pregnancy confirmation test, which confirmed that she had become pregnant.

Thus, the complainant alleged that the Tubectomy operation conducted by the treating doctor failed due to negligence.

It was further submitted by the complainant that they are poor coolie laborers and were already under the monetary burden and due to the unwanted newborn child, the family of the complainant faced an additional responsibility.

So, the complainant approached the District Consumer Court alleging that the careless and negligent attitude of the treating doctor in conducting a Tubectomy operation amounts to deficiency in service.

On the other hand, the treating doctor denied the averments made in the complaint and submitted that before conducting the Tubectomy operation she had explained the complainant and his wife about the percentage of failures in family planning operation. The doctor also claimed that the complainant had given an undertaking as well clarifying that they would not claim anything if the family planning operation is failed.

It was further submitted by the doctor that no prevalent method of sterilization is foolproof and guarantees 100% success. At this outset, the doctor referred to the authoritative test books on gynecology and empirical researches which recognize the failure rate of 0.3% to 7% depending on the technique chosen out of the several recognized and accepted ones.

The doctor further argued that as per Government and International standards the patients are supposed to approach before 8 weeks of pregnancy, if at all conceived to the same hospital, where the Sterilization operation was done. In this regard the complainant and his wife clearly exceeded the time limit to file this present complaint, it was argued on behalf of the doctor.

The doctor and the Nursing Home submitted that they had conducted the operation as per procedures and medical rules without any negligency and deficiency in service, and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

After perusing the complaint, the counter, and the documents filed, the Consumer Court noted that even though the doctor and Nursing Home in their counter affidavit had submitted that before conducting Tubectomy operation she had explained to the complainant and his wife about the percentages of failure in family planning operation, but they failed to confirm the same with any documentary evidence.

In fact, in the Cross-Examination as well, the complainant denied receiving any such information from the doctor. Further, even though the doctor claimed that the complainant and his wife had signed an undertaking mentioning that they would not claim anything if the family planning operation failed, but no such document was submitted before the Commission.

Taking note of all these facts, the Commission noted, "The evidence produced by the complainant is sufficient to make it a case of negligence against the opposite party." So, the Commission awarded an amount of Rs 2 lakh as compensation.

"In view of our aforesaid discussion, we feel that the opposite party was negligent while conducting sterilization operation on complainant's wife the citation filed by the opposite party is not proper to consider, and therefore is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency committed by her," observed the Commission.

"In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties to pay the complainant jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the legal proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it carries interest @ 9% p.a. from date of filing the complaint till realization," further mentioned the order.

To read the Commission order, click on the link below.