REETA BARWAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29.2.2000 passed in Civil Suit No. 126/1 of 1997 by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Nahan, dismissing the application of the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as defendant No.2, made under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, for permitting her to lead her evidence after the evidence of defendant No. 3 (respondent No. 2 before this Court).

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case leading to the present petition are these. One Smt. Sunita Devi, on 25.1.1994, was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Nahan, in the Gynecology ward of which defendant No. 2 was the incharge and defendant No. 3 was a junior doctor. The said Smt. Sunita Devi developed labour pains at about 9 p.m. on 5.2.1994 and she delivered a child at about 10 p.m. However, at that time no medical expert was present in the ward. The delivery was attended upon by the staff nurses. Some complications developed during the delivery and due to non-presence of and non-attending by defendants No. 2 and 3, Smt. Sunita Devi died. The respondents No. 4 to 8, who are the husband, daughter and sons of the deceased, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, filed a suit for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the death of Smt. Sunita Devi on the allegations that such deatn had resulted due to the acts of omission of defendant No. 2 inasmuch as she failed to attend the deceased inspite of repeated calls having been sent to her.

(3.) The suit was initially filed by the plaintiffs only against the State of H.P. (defendant No. 1), the petitioner (defendant No. 2) and the Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nahan (defendant No. 4).