The court established that the failure of a sterilization operation due to natural causes does not provide grounds for a claim and emphasized the importance of the consent letter and the decision of the couple in such cases.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member -The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 11.7.2013 in Appeal No. 192 of 2009 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'state Commission'). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal. The Appeal was filed against the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, District Forum ) in Complaint No. 142/2005 dated 18.10.2008.

2. The Complainant, Smt. Babita, underwent a Laparoscopic Tubectomy (Sterilization operation) on 10.4.2002. Thereafter, she got conceived and delivered a female baby on 18.12.2004. Hence, she alleged the deficiency in service on the part of OP who conducted the tubectomy operation negligently which caused pregnancy. She filed a complaint before the District Forum.

3. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 30,000 towards negligence in tubectomy operation and Rs. 60,000 for bringing up the child, Rs. 3,000 towards the mental agony and Rs. 1,000 as costs. The District Forum observed that suffering and delivery of the child after the operation, clearly shows deficiency in service on the part of OP.

4. The OP approached the State Commission by way of filing the first appeal which was partly allowed and the order of the District Forum was modified. The State Commission directed the OP-1 to pay a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to the Complainant and granted permission to file a claim as per the policy of Government of NCT of Delhi, made under the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court for ex gratia payments to the acceptors of failed sterilization operation/tubectomy operation. It further, ordered that the Insurance Company shall pass the claim of the Respondent/Complainant within thirty days from the date of filing of the claim. The State Commission also directed the Principal Secretary of Health to ensure that all Hospitals/Nursing Houses in Delhi, prominently display the guidelines to be followed by the acceptors of Tubectomy operations as well as failure percentage of tubectomy operations and the ex gratia compensation scheme of the Government of NCT of Delhi in respect of acceptors of sterilization/operations.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/OP filed this Revision Petition.

6. We have heard the Counsel for both the parties. There is a delay of 75 days in filing this Revision Petition. The Counsel for Petitioner/OP brought our attention towards the application for condonation of delay and explained that the delay was due to departmental procedures. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay.

7. On merits, the Counsel for OPs argued that the Complainant had signed the Consent, which clearly explains that there are chances of failure of the tubectomy operation and that the Complainant also had to take all due care in case of any missed menstrual cycle and had to report the same, within two weeks. Therefore, in case of failure to comply with the instructions mentioned in the consent letter, the OPs are not liable. Also Counsel for OP submits that, it is a Government Hospital rendering free services, therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer and both the Fora below have arbitrarily awarded the compensation.

8. The rival arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Complainant that even though the OP-hospital is a Government Hospital, but all the services are not free of charge . He further submits, that the Complainant was never told about the details of consent letter. It was in English language and as she was an illiterate lady, she put her signature on the consent letter. Also, the quantum of compensation is on lesser side as she has to incur more expenditure for bringing up the unwanted family child.

9. After our thoughtful consideration and referring to Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in Indian Medical Association v. V. Shanta, AIR 1996 SC 550, I