PUSHPA DEVI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below returned against the plaintiff, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 2.4.1991, the appellant herein underwent the sterilization operation, but despite that she became pregnant and delivered a female child. It is alleged that defendant No. 4 Dr. Radha Chopra was negligent in performing the aforesaid operation, thus, she claimed Rs. 1,05,000/- as damages/compensation as follows:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_406_ACJ_2013_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was resisted and contested by the defendants. They raised the preliminary objections viz. locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, valuation and jurisdiction. On merits, they denied any negligence on their part and particularly on the part of defendant No. 4, who performed the sterilization operation after following the requisite procedure. It is specifically averred that there are chances of failure of such operation despite taking all the precautions by the doctors as well as by the person, who is to be operated upon. If the lady is already pregnant on the day of the operation, she could abort within three months, but it was a case of concealed pregnancy at the time of operation. She was advised to undergo abortion, but she failed to act as per medical advice, thus, there is no question of paying any damages to her because she had chosen to deliver her child knowing fully the consequences, if any.