PREETAM SONWANI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Later on, the State Officials conducted enquiry wherein it was found that the erring doctors were responsible for performing vasectomy operation on the petitioner and the penalties were proposed. The further contention is that during the enquiry by the State, it would reveal that despite service of several notices on the concerned officers/doctors, they chose not to turn up and hence on the basis of available documents i.e., register and papers of hospital, it was found that the respondents had committed negligence in performance of their duties. Therefore, the instant petition was filed with the following relief (s) :

(3.) In the return, the State contended that the petitioner had signed necessary papers before the vasectomy operation was conducted and and after undergoing the operation, the petitioner has received an amount of Rs.1100/- as a whole. It is stated that the vasectomy operation was performed on the petitioner on the basis of consent given by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief(s).