PUNNAM SOMALAKSHMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner. By the year 1999, they had two daughters and one son. The first petitioner has undergone Tubectomy Operation at Government Primary Health Center, Thorruru, on 27.2.1999. Petitioners 1 and 2 have begotten the third petitioner herein on 17.1.2001, despite the operation. It is stated that the family of petitioners 1 and 2 is very poor and on account of the birth of the third petitioner, they are overburdened, apart from undergoing physical and mental agony. They filed this writ petition with a prayer to award a sum of Rs.9,00,000/-, as compensation under various heads, against the respondents.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, a common counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that as a part of the family planning drive, several Tubectomy and Vasectomy Operations were conducted at the fourth respondent primary health center on 27.2.1999 by well-trained Medical Officers, assisted by trained Para Medical Staff. It is stated that several hundreds of operations were conducted earlier thereto in that center and there was no instance of any failure. Reference is also made to the declaration submitted by petitioners 1 and 2 to the effect that in the event of failure of the operation, they shall not hold the Government or its officials, responsible. The allegation of the first petitioner that when she went for medical aid on conceiving the fourth child, there was none to assist her at the fourth respondent primary health center, is denied

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that having regard to the limited economic resources, the petitioners decided not to have any further children and accordingly, the first petitioner has undergone Tubectomy Operation on 27.2.1999. He contends that the birth of the third petitioner has resulted not only in additional financial burden in the matter of bringing her up, but also, the physical and mental agony to petitioners 1 and 2. Placing reliance upon certain decided cases, he submits that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is reasonable.