Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and B.S. Sekhon, Member
RAJNI AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. - Respondents
First Appeal No. 1130 of 2007
Decided on : 05-03-2012
None., for the Appellant; None, for the Respondent
Compensation cannot be awarded merely on the ground that a child was born to a woman after a tubectomy operation.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Tubectomy Operation - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o) - The court discussed the definition of 'consumer' and 'service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It highlighted that passing on some consideration is necessary to bring the appellants within the definition of consumer. The court also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and Others, AIR 2005 SC 3250, which emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded merely on the ground that a child was born to a woman after a tubectomy operation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, poor laborers, sought compensation for medical negligence resulting in an unsuccessful tubectomy operation and the subsequent birth of a child, causing financial and mental distress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were not consumers qua the respondents as they had not hired the services of the respondents for consideration. It also emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded merely on the ground that a child was born to a woman after a tubectomy operation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were entitled to compensation for medical negligence resulting in an unsuccessful tubectomy operation and the subsequent birth of a child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that passing on some consideration is necessary to bring the appellants within the definition of consumer. It also emphasized that compensation cannot be awarded merely on the ground that a child was born to a woman after a tubectomy operation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' claim for compensation.
ORDER
Version of appellant
S.N. Aggarwal, President - Rajni appellant No. 1 is the wife of Karnail Singh appellant No. 2. They are poor people and are labourers.
2. It was further pleaded that appellant No. 1 went to the Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ropar respondent No. 3 for tubectomy operation as the appellants had already completed their family. The tubectomy operation was conducted by the respondents on 8.6.2006 vide CR No. l63/TO 145. Certificate to that effect was also issued to the appellants by the respondents.
3. It was further pleaded that the tubectomy operation conducted by the respondents remained unsuccessful. Complaint was lodged to the higher authorities but to no effect. Because of the medical negligence by the respondents, appellant No. 1 became pregnant and delivered a female child. It became expensive for the appellants to bring up the child and to provide her education. It created great mental tension and torture to the appellants. Hence the complaint for compensation amount of Rs. 30 lakh.
Version of the respondents.
4. The respondents filed the written reply by way of affidavit of Dr. Inder Dhir Gill, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ropar on behalf of all the respondents. It was pleaded that the appellants were not consumers qua the respondents as the appellants had not hired the services of the respondents for consideration. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Rather appellant No. 1 herself was negligent as she did not comply with the advice/instructions given by the respondents at the time of her admission for tubectomy operation.
5. On merits, it was admitted that tubectomy operation of appellant No. l was performed by the respondents on 8.6.2006. It was successful. Appellant No. 1 had already conceived a few days earlier and she was already pregnant on 8.6.2006. She carried the same pregnancy afterwards. She was suspected to be pregnant on the internal examination on the date of operation. The appellants were to report subsequently on that account. The appellants had undertaken to appear in the hospital within 15 days if she failed to get the monthly period. However, appellant No. 1 failed to appear in the hospital and failed to comply with the instructions issued by the respondents.
6. It was further pleaded that appellant No. 1 visited the hospital on 4.10.2006 for termination of pregnancy. It was more than 22 weeks' old. As per the provisions of the M.T.P. Act, it was not legal to terminate a pregnancy which was more than 20 weeks' old. Therefore the birth of the child took place because of the fault on the part of the appellants.
7. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
8. The appellants filed the rejoinder.
Proceedings before the District Forum:
9. Rajni appellant filed her affidavit Ex. C-1. The appellants also proved documents Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4.
10. On the other hand, Dr. Inder Dhir Gill filed his affidavit Ex. D-5. The respondents also proved documents Ex. D-1 to Ex. D-4.
11. Learned District Forum considered the matter and dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 9.7.2007.
12. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
13. On the face of it, the appellants nowhere pleaded in the complaint if they had paid any consideration to the respondents for availing the tubectomy operation. Therefore the appellants are not the consumers qua the respondents. The word consumer has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under:
"2(1)(d) consumer means any person who (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, b
