MAHINDRO Vs. SECRETARY HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and decree dated 7.1.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat, is under challenge in the present regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts available on record are that the plaintiff is resident of village Seenk. She is married and had three children, two sons, namely, Anwar and Alijan; aged 10 and 6 years respectively and a daughter namely Reena, 8 years old in the year 1994. She wanted not to have any more child in family. Plaintiff claims that she contacted a registered medical practitioner namely, Ranbir Singh and his wife, who are social workers. They advised the plaintiff to undergo sterilization operation. It is alleged that plaintiff was taken to the Primary Health Centre, Naultha, for sterilization operation. She was introduced to the defendant No. 2, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Naultha. A camp was organised at Primary Health Centre, Naultha by the defendants for performing sterilization operations. The plaintiff was taken to the said camp on 21.7.1994. The sterilization operation was performed upon her and she was issued a certificate on the same date. It has further been alleged that the plaintiff was assured after the sterilization operation that she would not conceive a child in future. It is stated that even after the aforesaid operation she conceived in the year 1995. She approached for abortion but the doctors advised her against it on 8.4.1995. The plaintiff gave birth to twins (girls). Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 7.7.2000 upon defendants claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 and also interest at the rate of 18 per cent. After the notice, the present suit came to be filed as an indigent person claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000. She was declared as indigent person vide order dated 11.3.2004. The plaintiff pleaded dereliction of duty on the part of defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants in their disclaimer filed to the suit denied the allegations of negligence and dereliction of duty while admitting the performance of tubectomy upon the plaintiff. They pleaded that 100 per cent success is not possible in such an operation. Defendants also stated that plaintiff did not consult the operating surgeon when she conceived. They denied their liability for payment of any such compensation.

(3.) As many as eight issues were framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. However, the contentious issue is issue No. 1, which reads as under: