IMPORTANT POINT
Where death of the patient related back to her operation for medical termination of pregnancy and also for tubectomy operation the claimants would be entitled to compensation on account of medical negligence on part of the respondent doctor.

S.N. Aggarwal, President— This complaint was filed in this Commission on 17.5.1993. It was dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 17.8.1993 on the plea that the complainants were not the consumers qua the respondents. The complainants had filed an appeal (FA No.634 of 1993) in the Hon’ble National Commission. The appeal was accepted and the order dated 17.8.1993 passed by this Commission dismissing the complaint was set aside. The matter was remanded to this Commission with the direction to take on record evidence as to whether in the hospital where tubectomy was performed on complainant No.1 some charges were being levied on the patient and thereafter to decide the question afresh referred to above. After the file was received back in this Commission both the parties were called upon to produce evidence by way of affidavits/documents. The complainants had produced the affidavits and some documents but the State of Punjab had failed to do so and was proceeded against ex parte. This complaint was again dismissed by this Commission vide order dated 3.12.1996 by holding that the complainants were not the consumers qua the respondents. The complainants again filed an appeal (FA No.147 of 1997) in the Hon’ble National Commission which was accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 13.12.2005 and the complainants were held as consumers. The impugned judgment dated 3.12.2006 was set aside and this Commission was directed to decide the complaint afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and to decide the appeal on merits.

2. After the matter reached back this Commission, it was brought to the notice of this Commission that Dr. Dharam Pal respondent No.2 had filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.12425 of 2006 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the remand order of the Hon’ble National Commission dated 13.12.2005. The S.L.P. filed by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.2.2010. As a result the remand order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission dated 13.12.2005 remained in force by which this Commission was to decide the complaint afresh after giving the parties an opportunity to lead evidence. Accordingly the parties were directed to produce whatever evidence they wanted to produce in support of their respective versions. Arguments have been heard. This is how the matter has come before us for decision on merits.

3. The version of the complainants was that Raj Dulari was the wife of Pavitar Singh complainant and mother of Narved Kumar, Raman Kumar, Anju Bala and Harpreet Kaur complainants.

4. It was further pleaded that on 8.1.1993 respondent No.2 Dr. Dharam Pal was posted as Senior Medical Officer in Civil Hospital, Samrala. On the persuasion of respondent No.2, complainant No.1 Pavitar Singh had agreed to get his wife Raj Dulari operated for tubectomy for family planning purposes. Raj Dulari was accordingly operated for tubectomy by respondent No.2 in Civil Hospital, Samrala on 8.1.1993. However respondent No.2 failed to take necessary precautions which should have been taken during operation and at post operation stage. The operation was not successful. Raj Dulari was discharged from the hospital immediately after operation. She was not kept in the hospital for post operation care. Raj Dulari developed post operation complications. She was again brought to Civil Hospital, Samrala. She was referred to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana where she died on 13.1.1993.

5. It was further pleaded that Raj Dulari used to work as a labourer earning Rs.40 per day as her wages. She was 30 years old at the time of her death. She had a good physique and was not suffering from any medical problem. She died because of sheer medical negligence on the part of respondent No.2. The State of Punjab respondent No.1 was also vicariously liable. Hence the complaint for compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000.

6. Respondent No.1 filed the short written reply. It was pl