STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KALPANA CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/Defendants against judgment and decree dated 21.7.2001 passed in Civil Appeal No. 87-S/13 of 2000 by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, Circuit Court at Rohru whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 3.9.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 95-1 of 1997.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that the respondent No.1/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') instituted a suit for damages/compensation against the appellants and proforma respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant No.3') to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of failure of the family planning operation conducted on the plaintiff by defendant No.3. It is averred in the plaint that the husband of the plaintiff is serving as multipurpose health worker in Health Department and officials of the Health Department persuaded the plaintiff to opt for family planning operation, which was to be conducted according to the latest techniques. The plaintiff on the persuasion of the officials, agreed to go for laparoscopy operation which was done on 11.12.1991 by defendant No.3. After the aforesaid operation, the doctor issued operation card-cum-identification card to the plaintiff. It is averred in the plaint that lateron the plaintiff came to know that her operation in fact was not properly done and due to the negligence on the part of defendant No.3 the plaintiff again became pregnant. The plaintiff ultimately gave birth to a female child on 17.11.1992 at Civil Hospital, Rohru. Before the laparoscopy operation the plaintiff was assured by the defendant No.3 that in future after operation she will not conceive and no risk is involved in the same. The plaintiff never wanted the child and the plaintiff was advised by the doctor not to terminate the pregnancy as it will be risky to her. Subsequently, the plaintiff was admitted in Kamla Nehru Hospital, Shimla where she delivered a child. The plaintiff was to face humiliation and also mentally disturbed, which resulted in the separation of family of her husband in the form of family partition from joint family.

(3.) It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiff again went for second operation of family planning at Kamla Nehru Hospital by way of Tubectomy operation and after the performance of this operation, the plaintiff became unable to perform all the domestic and agriculture works. The husband of the plaintiff engaged one woman to perform the domestic and agriculture work. It is alleged that the plaintiff was still under medical treatment and was feeling pain in her back bone due to the second operation. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff spent thousands of rupees on her treatment and the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the appellants and defendant No.3 i.e. Rs. 15,000/- on account of treatment, Rs. 50,000/- labour charges as well as damages on account of mental and physical pain and Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of education and up bringing of the third child. It is further averred that the plaintiff filed a writ petition in the High Court and the High Court directed the plaintiff to approach the civil Court for appropriate relief and the said writ petition was dismissed on 23.12.1996.