LAXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been preferred by the Plaintiff against the Judgment passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 13-A/01, on Date 05.02.2002, whereby the Suit instituted by the Plaintiff, seeking compensation on account of alleged failure of Sterilization Operation has been dismissed by the Trial Court upon finding that the negligence as alleged by the Plaintiff against the Surgeon has not been proved.

(2.) The Plaintiff-Laxmi Devi happens to be a housewife and her husband Omprakash is a Tailor, by occupation who have been blessed with three sons and four daughters and the Plaintiff had undergone a Tubectomy (T.T.) Operation at the E.S.I.S. General Hospital, Gwalior wherein Dr. Abha Gupta (Respondent No. 4) had performed the operation on Date 29.04.1994 and the Plaintiff was discharged from the Hospital on Date 05.05.1994, but inspite of the Sterilization Operation, the Plaintiff had exhibited symptoms of pregnancy, when on Date 23.05.1995 she contacted Respondents No. 3 & 4 at the Hospital, but it was expressed by the Respondents that the Hospital or Surgeon is not responsible, as there are some chances of failure of the Sterilization Operation.

(3.) The Plaintiff gave birth to a baby boy on Date 01.11.1995, whereafter a Suit for compensation was filed against the State Authority, E.S.I.S. Hospital and Dr. Abha Gupta for a total compensation sum of Rs. 2,78,000/- (classified under various Heads) and the Trial Court had permitted the Plaintiff and the Defendants to lead their respective evidence on the issue framed during the trial and upon conclusion of the trial, the Court has found that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that Respondents No. 3 & 4 were negligent in discharge of their duties or there was such negligence, committed during the course of the operation that the Operating Surgeon could be held responsible for payment of the compensation. The Trial Court has found that the Plaintiff was not entitled for payment of the compensation under any of the heads claimed by the Plaintiff. Against this dismissal of Suit, the Plaintiff has preferred this First Appeal before this Court as an indigent person and by Order Dated 29.08.2006, this Court had allowed the Appellant to prosecute this Appeal as an indigent person.