STATE OF KERALA Vs. ILLATH NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendant State in O.S. 84 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Vadakara, who has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 as damages to the second Plaintiff with future interest at 6% is the Appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the court below.

(2.) The Plaintiffs had three children aged seven years, four and a half years and two and a half years, namely, Vipesh, Vipin and Vijila respectively. One of the children had congenital defects. Plaintiffs hail from poor circumstances. They were unable to bring up Anr. child. Therefore they decided to go in for family planning. At that time, it so happened that on 11-10-1985 the Respondent State was organising a Female Sterilization Camp at Thiruvangoor. From the literature distributed with reference to the said Camp, Plaintiffs were given to understand that laparoscopic sterilization method is safe and foolproof. They were given to understand that the operation would be done by experienced doctors with the assistance of qualified persons. Lured by the literature and also forced by the circumstances, the second Plaintiff underwent laparoscopic sterilization operation. It was done by Dr. Biswas Vydia. However, later she conceived quite contrary to the assurance given by the persons who had conducted the Camp. Pointing out that the pregnancy was due to the negligence in the conduct of operation done by the doctor, she sued the State. The doctor, who had conducted the operation was not alive on the date of the suit.

(3.) The State resisted the claim. It denied that there was any negligence on the part of the doctor, who had conducted the operation and it was pointed out that the Plaintiff had no cause of action. It was contended that they had given no assurance that laparoscopic sterilization was the foolproof. The State contended that the operation was in 1985 and the second Plaintiff had conceived only in 1988. It is therefore contended that even if the second Plaintiff had conceived subsequently, it could not be attributed to any negligence, even assuming there was any, on the part of the doctor, who had conducted the operation. They denied the allegation of inefficiency of staff etc. and pointed out that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief