STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. LAKHWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the defendant-appellant who is State of Punjab acting through Dr. P.R. Ghuman, respondent No. 2 was negligent in performing tubectomy surgery of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 because after the surgery in a family planning camp on 14.2.1992 a female child is born to her on 27.3.1994. There are concurrent findings that defendant-appellant was negligent as a result of which the plaintiff-respondent has delivered a female child on 27.3.1994. The matter is covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Santra, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 739 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 1888. The Courts below have awarded a sum of rupees two lacs to the plaintiff-respondent alongwith recovery of an amount of Rs. 4296/- paid by the plaintiff-respondent as Court-fee.

(2.) LEARNED State counsel has argued that assessment of the compensation is on the higher side as ordinarily in such like cases compensation of not more than rupees one lac is paid. According to the learned State counsel there is no formula adopted for assessing the award of compensation.

(3.) THERE cannot be any straightjacket formula for assessing compensation in such like cases. However, the method adopted by the trial Court cannot be considered as unrealistic. The plaintiff-respondent has been awarded maintenance for 20 years @ Rs. 5,000/- per year which comes to Rs. one lac. By no stretch of imagination a sum of Rs. 5,000/- per year could be considered as excessive because the total amount per month would be less than rupees 500/-. Then a sum of Rs. 90,000/- for her marriage expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for medical and other expenses for a period of 20 years again cannot be considered excessive. Infact the amount awarded is modest. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.