1. PARIVAR SEWA SANSTHA
Sharma Building, M.I. Road
Jaipur
Rajasthan                                                                ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                         Versus    
1. SHIV DEVI PRAJAPATI
R/o. E-155 C Dopuri, Gas Godown Road, Opp. Chitrakoot Tank, 200 Feet Bypass, Ajmer Road
Jaipur
Rajasthan                                                                ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:    
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER

Dated : 01 Jul 2015
JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 
1.      The case of Smt. Shivadevi Prajapati, the complainant, a teacher is this that she had conceived despite using all contraceptives.  The complainant had already got three children.  She went for medical termination of pregnancy on 19.01.2002.  She approached Parivar Seva Sansthan (Formerly Marie Stopes Clinic), Sharma Building, M.I. Road, Jaipur, for the above said purpose.  Tubectomy was performed and she was discharged on the same day.  The stitches were removed on 28.01.2002 and on 06.04.2002.
 
2.      Thereafter, she felt heaviness in her stomach and got herself checked.  It transpired that she was pregnant and was carrying 18 weeks’ pregnancy.  She got the sonography done in Amar Jain Hospital, the report revealed that she was having 20 weeks pregnancy.  She delivered a male child on 24.08.2002.  She filed a complaint against the Opposite Party.
 
3.      The OP denied negligence and took the stand that there is no guarantee of 100% success in all operation.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint because the report of Rajasthan Medical Council was not yet received.  The same was filed before the State Commission.  The State Commission placed reliance on the said report, allowed the complaint and granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation plus Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
 
4.      Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition.  I have heard the counsel for the parties.  Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards the authority reported in “Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab & Anr.”  (2005) 6SCC 1.  He also invited my attention towards chapter 10 under the Caption, “When Abortion Fails, Woman’s health after abortion, the Medical and Psychological Evidence”.  Counsel for the petitioner has also cited Supreme Court’s authority reported in Smt. Vinitha Ashok Vs. Lakshmi Hospital and Ors. AIR2001SC3914.  It was argued that the Doctor cannot be held guilty of negligence.  She has acted in accordance with practice accepted as proper by reasonable body of medical men.
 
 
5.      It must be borne in mind that each case has different facts.  The petitioner is not a novice.  She herself stated that she has done around 7500 M.T.Ps in last 4½  years.  She contended that this is a blind procedure, no-one can take 100% guarantee of this procedure. She also explained that along with other complications, continuation of pregnancy is a non-complication of MTP, if we see a gestation sac even then, possibility of twin sac cannot be ruled out.  She further explained that there may be other reason of continuation also but it is a complication.  She also explained that the complainant did not approach her at the time of first menses or second menses.  She explained that failure rate of such like blind procedure is 0.23%.
 
 
6.      In this case the report of Rajasthan Medical Council is crucial and determinative of all the facts involved herein.  This report was prepared by Dr. V.K. Kaushik-President, Dr. S.K. Parteek-Member, Dr. (Smt.) Santosh Mukul-Member, Dr. R.C. Gupta-Member, Dr. J.L. Gargia-Member, Dr. R.P. Doria-Member.  The State Commission has mentioned about the report.  The conclusion runs as follows:-

     “Dr. Chaudhary seems to be casual in dealing with the case and also lacks experience.  Had she cared to observe the produce of conception properly or in case of doubt got Histopathology done or conducted the clinical examination at the time of revisit of the patient, she would not have missed the pregnancy.  However, there does not seem to be a wilful negligence on the part of the doctor but appears to be an error of judgment.  The patient also is at fault for not consulting the doctor when she did not get her first period after MTP  and Tubectomy operation.  The doctor be censured to be more cdareful in future as she is involved in a National Programme & failure of such a programme may have a deleterious effect and subsequently bring bad name to the practicing doctor.

     Further, the Council decided that the institution should be instructed to be more vigilant in future so far as family welfare cases are concerned, and there should always be a senior doctor along with a junior doctor to supervise the work.  Further it is suggested that in an institution where so much work is done, an ultrasound machine with an expert should also be attached.  The institution also should have a proper follow-up and home visits at regular intervals.  This is a National Programme and it is to be taken very seriously because the success and failure of such a programme depends on the expert’s advise and proper treatment of the case”.

7.      The complainant approached the petitioner twice after the operation.  She should have checked the same and as advised by the above said report, should have done Histopathology.  Had she done so, this problem would not have occurred.
 
8.      How this country can reduce the population, if our doctors are terribly remiss in the discharge of their duties.  This is a question of National Importance.  The complainant was also negligent as pointed out above, i.e. why the State Commission was having its heart at right place while awarding a meagre amount of compensation.  The Revision Petition is lame of strength and therefore, the same is dismissed.