SMT. RAM KALI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff Smt. Ram Kali has filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 15th Sept., 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra who allowed the appeal of the defendants/State of Haryana and set aside the judgment and decree dated 27th Feb., 1989 passed by the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Kurukshetra, who granted a money decree for a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 in favour of the plaintiff ad against the defendants, besides interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the decree till payment. The suit was filed in forma pauperis.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Ram Kali filed a civil suit in forma pauperis and prayed for a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 by way of damages against the defendants. The case set up by the plaintiff (appellant herein) in the trial Court was that she was operated upon for sterilisation at Civil Hospital, Shahabad Markanda, Tehsil Thenesar on 30th Jan., 1985. In spit of the aforesaid operation, she gave birth to a female child on 18.12.1985. The case of the plaintiff/appellant was that she is a very poor lady and has been burdened with the expenses for bringing up the child, to perform her marriage etc. It was also the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court that she was given birth to a female child on account of the negligence and carelessness on the part of the doctor of the defendant-State and in these circumstance, the defendant-State is vicariously liable to pay compensation to her, along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of the operation.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Written statement was filed and the suit of the plaintiff was contested. It was admitted that sterilisation operation of the plaintiff was performed on 30th Jan., 1985 in the Civil Hospital, Shahabad and it was also admitted that the plaintiff gave birth to a female child on 18th Dec., 1985. According to the stand of the respondent, the operation was performed by Dr. Neeraj Gaur who is a Post-Graduate in Surgery and is a competent doctor. The doctor of the defendants never assured the plaintiff that there would be 100% success in the operation. In such type of operations there are chances of failure for the reasons beyond the human control. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff could have terminated her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of pregnancy Act, 1971 when she came to know that in spite of operation she had conceived a child.