AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
This is a case of failure of sterilisation (tubectomy) in the 1990s, conducted in Civil Hospital, Payal, District Ludhiana, a government hospital.
The brief facts are that one Mrs. Baljinder Kaur, the patient, the petitioner no. 2 herein, wife of one Mr. Manjit Singh, the petitioner no. 1 herein, underwent tubectomy procedures on 23.09.1994 and 27.02.1998. The procedures were unsuccessful. The first unsuccessful procedure in 1994 necessitated an abortion. The second unsuccessful procedure in 1998 resulted in the birth of a male child in 2003. There is, but, nothing on record to show that some adverse medical condition accrued to the patient as a result of the failed tubectomy procedures.
A complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2004.
The District Forum vide its Order dated 20.01.2005 dismissed the complaint in limine on maintainability, holding that the complainants were not 'consumer'(s) under the Act 1986 as the services for sterilisation conducted at a general government hospital were free.
An appeal was filed before the State Commission in 2005.
The State Commission vide its Order dated 03.02.2011 similarly dismissed the complaint on maintainability.
The instant revision petition was filed in 2011, challenging the Order dated 03.02.2011 of the State Commission.
We heard the learned amicus curiae for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the material on record.
We note that the said tubectomy procedures were conducted way back in 1994 and in 1998. Litigation itself, from 2004 to 2019, has taken about one and a half decades. The procedures were conducted in a government hospital, i.e. Civil Hospital, Payal. Family planning / welfare was a priority programme of the government. Sterilisation procedures in the government hospitals / health care centres were conducted in huge volumes, the number of patients was large, the wherewithals were limited. On occasions, failure in tubectomy was reported, for a range of reasons.
Gradually, the wherewithals in government hospitals / health care centres improved, with the improvement being a continuous process, and the failures went down progressively.
In this light, we also note that Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions in 2005 vide Order dated 01.03.2005 in Civil Writ Petition No. 209/2003 (Ramakant Rai V/s Union of India), wherein the Hon'ble Court inter alia directed the Union of India and the State Governments / UT Administrations to ensure uniformity and overall improvements in sterilization procedures.
In this backdrop, considering what has been stated in paras 6 to 8 above, we refrain from attributing medical negligence on the Civil Hospital in the instant case.
We make it explicit that the same yardstick would not (and can not) be adopted if it had been a case of a private / corporate hospital, or a case of recent years (and not of the 1990s), the yardstick would (and should) have been strict, and commensurate compensation under the Act 1986 would have been considered.
We do not find it appropriate to enter into the arena of 'free services' in the then facts and context of failed sterilisation procedures under a priority programme of the government conducted in a government hospital in the years 1994 and 1998. The issue of 'free services', as relevant and applicable in the present times and context, does not require to be examined by taking the instant case of the years 1994 and 1998 as an exemplar. We may but explicitly remark that defence of 'free services' cannot be construed to imply carte blanche for medical negligence or non-accountability.
We feel that, in the instant case, considering that it is admitted that the sterilisation procedures were unsuccessful twice, the litigation itself has taken over one and a half decades, the ends of justice will be met, and the equities will be balanced, with the Civil Hospital, Payal through its Senior / Chief Medical Officer / Superintendent ensuring that all (repeat all) compensation etc. provided by the State Government as per the extant (repeat extant) guidelines and policy in respect of each of the two failed procedures, individually, is paid to the complainants with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the respective dates of failure till actual payment(s). Any payment(s) made as compensation etc. earlier shall be adjusted therein. This shall be ensured within eight weeks of the pronouncement of this Order.
The onus to ascertain the extant compensation etc. provided by the State Government under its extant guidelines and policy and of duly making all payment(s) after duly adjusting payment(s) of compensation etc. if any paid earlier within the stipulated period of eight weeks shall be on the Civil Hospital, Payal through its Senior / Chief Medical Officer / Superintendent.
But, in the facts and context of this case, as already stated, we are refraining from recording a finding of medical negligence.
With the direction contained in para 12 above, the allegations apropos medical negligence are dismissed.
The Registry is directed to send a copy each of this Order to all the parties (including the complainants) and to the District Forum within three days of its pronouncement.
In case of failure or omission to comply with the direction contained in para 12 above, the District Forum shall undertake execution as per the law.