LAWS(GJH)-2003-3-24

BHAKTA MITUL ALIAS MITA VAMANBHAI Vs. DISTRICT REGISTRAR

Decided On March 26, 2003
Bhakta Mitul Alias Mita Vamanbhai Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT REGISTRAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authority i.e. District Registrar, Birth and Death and Chief District Health Officer, District Panchayat, Surat to correct the birth record of the petitioner by making correction in the column of sex from female and male.

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner was born on 7.5.1979 in village Orna, Ta: Kamrej, Dist: Surat. At the time of his birth, the parents of the petitioner could not identify the sex of the child as male or female as extraordinary genitals were ambiguous. From the petitioner's private part, it looked more like that of a female and hence the parents of the petitioner got the name registered in the name of register of birth as female child. As private parts of the petitioner showed some deformity, the parents of the petitioner consulted the doctor at the relevant point of time. The doctor advised to get the child medically examined every year in the course of his growth. The petitioner's parents consulted their family doctor, who advised the petitioner's parents Dr. Bharat Shah. Dr. Bharat Shah examined the petitioner by taking several tests and opined that the petitioner has got hidden male organ and has no symptoms of a female and hence advised to consult an expert surgeon. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi where the petitioner was examined by Dr. Gupta, Head of Paediatrics Department, where several tests were carried out. Dr. Mayur Lekhadia, by operation, exposed hidden male organ of the petitioner and thereafter, Dr. Pradip Atodaria performed other necessary operations. On the diagnosis of several doctors, real sex of the petitioner could be known that the petitioner is male and not female. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition for a direction to the respondents as stated above.

(3.) Inspite of service of notice, the respondents have not file any affidavit-in-reply. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.