AHMEDABAD: If pregnancy after a sterilization operation was not enough, a woman from Kalol in Gandhinagar was not offered a timely abortion too resulting in birth of an unwanted child who is disabled. Acknowledging this double whammy, a court has recently ordered health authorities and the district collector to pay Rs 3.39 lakh with interest to the woman.
The court has asked the authorities to pay compensation and Rs 1,500 maintenance per month for the child till he turns 18. The woman will also get Rs 10,000 towards mental stress and Rs 5,000 to cover legal expenditure. The amount will be paid with 6% interest to the woman by the health officer of the PHC, the district health officer, the health commissioner and the district collector.
The case involved Premila Thakor, a mother of five then, from Sherisa village in Gandhinagar district. In February 2007, she opted for a sterilization operation. However, to her dismay, she conceived again. The shocked woman made an application at the Hajipur primary health centre near her village, requesting that the pregnancy be terminated. She was redirected to a private facility, which was charging Rs 9,000 for an abortion. The woman cited inability to afford the fee and ultimately gave birth to a son in May 2009. The child was found to have 75% disability.
Thakor sued the medical officer at Hajipur PHC, the district health officer, health commissioner, the district collector along with an insurance company, which was liable to pay Rs 30,000 insurance on failure of the sterilization operation. She told the court that an unwanted child was born and she had to suffer mental stress and physical pain.
Court allows compensation
Premila Thakor demanded maintenance to raise her son – Rs 1,500 per month till he becomes an adult. She also sought compensation of Rs 5 lakh on the grounds that because of the doctors’ negligence in the sterilization process and their inaction in terminating her pregnancy, she had to bear the maintenance of the sixth child.
The court accepted the woman’s contention that the fetus was not aborted despite her request to the authorities. The court also refused to believe the authorities’ claim that the pregnancy was at an advanced stage so abortion was not possible.
The principal senior civil judge Dipa Thakar noted, “The plaintiff (Thakor) has failed to prove that there was negligence of Dr Swati Patel in the sterilization operation. But the plaintiff has successfully proved that if the defendants took timely care of the plaintiff ’s follow up and had done an abortion on written request of the plaintiff, she might not have given birth to a 75% disabled child… If the Defendant No.1 and 2 (health officer and DHO) cared for the abortion of the plaintiff’s unwanted pregnancy at the right time just after her application on December 1, 2008, she would not have given birth to child with 75% disability. The Defendant No.1 and 2 are certainly liable for compensation.”