VASUKI Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court is a house wife and her husband is an Agricultural cooli. The petitioner gave birth to two children and after her second delivery on 19/7/2013 in the fifth respondent Hospital, the petitioner underwent Purperal Sterilization by Tubuctomy on 23/7/2013, in order to avoid further pregnancy. The surgery was performed by the sixth respondent and the petitioner was discharged from the Hospital on 29/7/2013. However, the petitioner was conceived again in the month of March, 2014 and gave birth to a third child on 6/1/2015. Thereafter, the petitioner again underwent the same procedure to prevent future pregnancy. With a grievance that the petitioner underwent another surgery and has to rear up another child due to the medical negligence of the respondents 5 and 6, she has made representations to the respondents seeking compensation. Since there was no proper response, she has moved the instant writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to grant compensation for the negligence in performing the Family Planning Operation.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was already having two children. During her second delivery at the fifth respondent Hospital, she was given assurance that Puerperal Sterilization by Tubuctomy is a fool-proof methodology to avoid fresh pregnancy. Believing the version of the Doctors that there is no chance of fresh conception after the successful surgery performed by the sixth respondent in the fifth respondent Hospital, the petitioner and her husband entered into matrimonial obligations. However, shockingly, the petitioner got conceived again and immediately, the petitioner and her husband reported to the respondents 5 and 6. They have directed the petitioner to abort the child, but the petitioner refused to abort the child in the womb, since it is a sin. The petitioner delivered the third child on 3/1/2015, due to the medical negligence of the respondents 5 and 6 and she had undergone another surgery by same methodology. Thereafter, she had not conceived once again, which proves that the first surgery was unsuccessful. Therefore, the respondents are vicariously and jointly liable for the lapses committed and prayed for compensation.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, by referring to the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent, submitted that the petitioner was explained about the Family Planning Operation, its pros and cons, success rate and post-operative complications, etc. Only after getting the consent from the petitioner and her family members, the petitioner was conducted with the sterilization operation. The petitioner also gave an undertaking before the operation to the effect that she knows about the operation and that the Doctors and the Hospital authorities are not responsible and that she would inform the Hospital authorities within two weeks if she does not get her menstruation after undergoing the operation and she agrees to abort the fetus and that she will not claim any compensation. Having agreed to the terms, the petitioner is estopped from making any claim for compensation.