Sterilization/Tubectomy Are Not Absolutely Safe, Failure Does Not Deserve Compensation: NCDRC

Brief Facts:

Robina (“complainant”) underwent a tubectomy operation (a permanent method of sterilization so that the woman does not get pregnant in the future) in a Family Planning Camp organized by the State of Rajasthan on 07.11.2005 which was performed by a medical officer. After two months of the said operation, the woman still conceived a female child. Aggrieved by the failed tubectomy operation which resulted into unwanted pregnancy, Robina filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs 2,00,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- against the medical officer and the state (“petitioners”). Being aggrieved by the order of the district commission, the petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, Rajasthan where the appeal was partly allowed by reducing the compensation however, the petitioners were still not satisfied and hence, they filed this revision petition before the NCDRC.

The argument of the petitioners is that the tubectomy operation was performed by qualified surgeon at the CHC and several other women also underwent the same successfully. Recanalization is something which to known to happen after tubectomy and therefore, it cannot be covered under medical negligence.

Observations of the Commission:

The NCDRC observed that both the district and the state fora failed to notice the fact that the Complainant conceived around 3 months after the operation. This simply means that the pregnancy was already existing before the tubectomy and went unnoticed during the operation. Thus, the commission concluded that the alleged pregnancy was not due to the failure of tubectomy.

The petitioner still considered to provide Rs. 30,000/- to the complainant lady under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme however, the NCDRC remarked that the aforementioned scheme was implemented from 29.11.2005 and it was the bad luck of the complainant that she underwent the tubectomy operation just a few days prior to that, rendering the scheme inapplicable on her. Conclusively, the pregnancy did not fall under failure of tubectomy operation and even if the pregnancy happened solely because of its failure, then also it would not amount to medical negligence. For the same, the Commission relied on the case of State of Punjab vs Shiv Ram and ors. AIR 2005 SC3280, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the methods of sterilization/tubectomy are not absolutely safe and secure and such failure does not deserve compensation.

Subsequently, the order of the State Commission was set aside and the consumer complaint was dismissed.

Case: State of Rajasthan & 2 ors. vs Robina

Case No.: Revision Petition No. 146 of 2018

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Harsha Vinoy

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. B.S. Sharma

Click Here To Read/Download Order