STATE OF H.P. Vs. MADHU BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree rendered on 5.3.2004 by the learned District Judge, Una, H.P., in Civil suit No. 14 of 2000, whereby the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lac only) with 6% interest from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,90,000/with 18% interest per annum, against the defendants. The plaintiff is a house wife and owing to low source of income, she opted for sterilization operation as she already have two children. She consulted the Doctor at Primary Health Centre, Takka, where she had been advised to consult the doctors at District Hospital, Una. Thereafter, plaintiff visited the District Hospital, Una and defendant No. 3 asked the plaintiff for sterilization operation under Family Planning Scheme of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, on the advise of defendant No. 3 on 14.6.1996 laparoscopic sterilization procedure was performed upon her. A certificate was also issued regarding the success of operation of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 3 also assured the plaintiff that she would not conceive in future. Later on, the plaintiff suspected the pregnancy owing to stoppage of menstruation cycle. She went for her medical check up on 22.3.1999 in the hospital where the urine test was conducted and the report was shown to be negative. Thereafter plaintiff got herself checked up from Nurse (Daee) and was shocked to know that she was pregnant. The plaintiff suffered serious shock, mental agony, harassment and pain as she was already having two children and was not desirous for any other child. She gave birth to third female child on 4.11.1999. The birth of the child is result of the negligency on the part of defendant No. 3. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 4,90,000/ - from the defendants as she never wanted any more child and opted for operation in accordance with the policy prepared by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed replication to the written -statement of the defendants, wherein, she denied the contents of the written -statement and re -affirmed and re -asserted the averments made in the plaint.