LAWS(MPH)-2007-5-59

ASHA DEVI GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 09, 2007
ASHA DEVI GUPTA Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful plaintiff aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 2-9-2004 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 8-13/02 dismissing the suit filed for the purpose of claiming compensation of Rs. Ten Lakhs on account of failure of vasectomy operation performed on her husband Rajaram resulting into birth of a child.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Smt. Asha Devi filed a suit on 31-7-1999 as an indigent person claiming compensation of Rs. Ten Lakhs. It was averred that Rajaram husband of the plaintiff had undergone vasectomy on 7-11-1994 in the Hospital run by Central Railway at Itarsi. Plaintiff's husband was an employee of Railways. A notice was served under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code claiming compensation of Rs. Five Lakhs as a son was born on 15-11-1998 after four years due to failure of vasectomy. Husband of the plaintiff was a Peon, unable to bear the expenses of two daughters born to them, and thus underwent vasectomy on 7-11-1994 after birth of second daughter. He was assured by the Doctor that he would not have any further child, however, plaintiff became pRegulation nt and delivered a third child. She had to undergo mental pain and suffering of pRegulation ncy. She was looked after in the society with doubt. A Green Card was issued to her husband. When plaintiff and her husband contacted the defendant No. 3 Medical Officer, they were informed that there was possibility of failure of sterilization operation, they could not help them and if plaintiff's husband desired, he could undergo fresh vasectomy, consequently the suit was filed.

(3.) AFTER recording the evidence, the trial Court as per impugned judgment and decree has found that negligence of the Surgeon who performed vasectomy had not been established. Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff's husband did not take the care to ensure that surgery was successful. Suit has been held to be within limitation. Plaintiff's suit has been dismissed; consequently, this appeal has been preferred.