Rs 20 lakh compensation relief to Delhi Hospital accused of negligence in performing tubectomy
New Delhi: Reiterating the Apex Court's ruling that the methods of sterilization so far known to the medical science are not 100% safe and secure, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), North-East Delhi dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for a failed tubectomy surgery.
The consumer court held that the complainant was not entitled to compensation for unwanted pregnancy since there was no negligence on the part of the hospital in performing the surgery and the complainant herself turned down the advice for Medical Termination of Pregnancy.
The matter goes back to 2014 when the Complainant was admitted to Swami Dayanand Hospital and was discharged for delivery. It was stated that since the patient already had two children born through C-section, at the time of the third delivery, the doctor of the hospital suggested immediate tubectomy because another caesarean delivery may be dangerous for the Complainant and her newborn baby. Accordingly, the complainant underwent a tubectomy and allegedly the doctors assured the Complainant that she would never conceive pregnancy in the future. After that, she was discharged from the hospital on 06.07.2014.
A few years later, the complainant felt pain in the abdomen and when she approached the treating hospital, the doctor found that UPT was positive and the doctors said that she already conceived on 09.04.2019. Therefore, the complainant alleged that the tubectomy was conducted in a negligent manner.
It was submitted that the complainant was merely a housewife and could not afford one more child and allegedly due to negligence of the hospital, an extra burden of maintenance came upon her. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service by the hospital, the complainant prayed for Rs 19,50,000 as compensation and another Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.
While considering the matter, the consumer court observed that it was a case of a failed tubectomy surgery performed by the hospital. However, it further noted that the complainant did not produce any document to support her allegation that the tubectomy surgery was performed negligently.
The hospital submitted that it was a hospital run by MCD and provides services for free. It further submitted that the concerned operation was performed by trained and empanelled doctor and proper consent was taken from the complainant's husband after explaining the risks and failure of the same. They claimed that the surgery was conducted without any negligence.
It was also submitted that the complainant was advised of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy when the pregnancy was confirmed. However, the complainant knowingly did not go for that and continued her pregnancy. Referring to this conduct of the complainant, it was submitted that the complainant had taken the risk of another pregnancy by not listening to the advice of the hospital and making an informed choice of continuing the pregnancy
Responding to the legal notice, the hospital submitted, "This appears to be a true failure due to recanalization of tubes for which the patient (Complainant) can avail FPIS for compensation through CDMO office."
The consumer court relied upon the Supreme Court order in the case of Civil Hospital & Ors. Versus Manjit Singh & Anr. where the NCDRC order directing a hospital to pay compensation to a woman who delivered a child despite undergoing tubectomy, was set aside.
In that case, the Apex Court had held, "The methods of sterilization so far known to medical science which are most popular and prevalent are not 100% safe and secure. In spite of the operation having been successfully performed and without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural causes. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice..."
"The cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterilization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth. Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed," the Apex Court had also observed.
Referring to the Apex Court's order, the consumer court held that the complainant could not be given compensation because of unwanted pregnancy. Further, the consumer court highlighted that the complainant herself turned down the advice for Medical termination of pregnancy.
"It is clear from above ruling that the Complainant is not entitled to compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child in cases of failed sterilization operation and claim in such type of cases can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of surgeon in performing the surgery and not on account of child birth. Since, in the present matter, there is nothing on record to show the negligence on the part of Opposite Party hospital in performing the surgery and the Complainant herself turned down the advice for Medical termination of pregnancy and rather opted to continue with the pregnancy, compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed," noted the Consumer Court.
"In view of above discussion and legal position, we are of the considered view that the Complainant is not entitled to compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child," it further observed.
"Thus, the present complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs. However, the Complainant may avail the remedy before the appropriate Forum in accordance with law," the consumer court mentioned while dismissing the complaint.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/delhi-failed-sterilization-no-med-negligence-228553.pdf
