BHARTI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 25-10-83 passed by additional District Judge, Jhabua in Civil Suit No. 3-B/1981, whereby the suit filed by the appellants for compensation was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellants who were minors filed a suit against the respondents for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 17-6-77 alleging that deceased Maltidevi Gidwani was the mother of the appellants and was working in the office of Animal Husbandry, Jhabua as accountant. The salary of the deceased Maltidevi was Rs. 373/- per month. It was alleged that on 19-7-1976 Smt. Maltidevi Gidwani was hospitalized at district Hospital, Jhabua where she delivered a son Laxman. It was alleged that after the delivery Maltidevi was pressurized by respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for T. T. operation and upon her denying the deceased and her husband were threatened that the deceased and her husband shall be terminated from their job and the husband of the deceased shall be arrested under the provisions of MIS A. It was alleged that under the pressure of respondents deceased Maltidevi agreed for the said operation. It was alleged that generally such type of Family Planning operations are being done after 5 days and within 10 days from the date of delivery but it was decided by the respondents to operate the deceased on 21-7-76, i. e. , within 5 days. It was further alleged that respondent No. 5 was not competent to perform the operation. It was alleged that since the anaesthesia was administered by an unauthorized person and life saving drugs were not available in the hospital, therefore, because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the respondents, appellants lost their mother. It was also alleged that thereafter the newly born baby also passed away. It was alleged that for the operation consent of the deceased was not taken. On the contrary, in spite of refusing, the operation was conducted after taking the consent by application of undue influence that the deceased and her husband will lose the job and will be booked in MISA, as it was a period of emergency. It was alleged that before administering the anaesthesia deceased was not informed about the probable dangers. It was alleged that before the operation, her blood pressure was not checked. Anaesthesia was given by one Dulesingh respondent No. 8, who was a dresser and was not authorized to administer the anaesthesia but because of carelessness and negligence of the respondents and anaesthesia was administered by respondent No. 8. Deceased was not examined clinically before administration of anaesthesia. It was also alleged that the operation ought to have been done after 5 days of delivery, but was administered only after 2 days. No permission was obtained from the Civil Surgeon. Respondent No. 5 was not a competent doctor. There was no proper arrangement of oxygen and after the death of Maltidevi no post-mortem of the dead body was performed. It was alleged that husband of the deceased Maltidevi was sitting outside, who was informed at about 11. 30 a. m. that Maltidevi his wife has expired. It was alleged that because of the negligence on the part of respondents, appellants lost their mother. Appellants claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- on various heads.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 state and also by other respondents by filing the written statement, wherein it was denied that there was any negligence on the part of any of the respondents. It was also denied that the nature of the operation was serious. It was also denied that any type of carelessness or negligence was there on the part of respondents. It was alleged that there was shortage of doctor of anaesthesia, therefore, anaesthesia is being given by the dresser respondent No. 8, who was competent because of experience. It was alleged that deceased was having 6 live children, therefore, deceased was also interested in T. T. operation. It was also alleged that cause of death was due to cardiac arrest during Tubertomy operation under general anaesthesia. It was alleged that since there was no negligence on the part of respondents, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed and same be dismissed.