Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Asha on 11 March, 2022
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16538/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Govt. Of Raj., Jaipur.
2. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sirohi.
3. Medical Officer Incharge, Sheoganj, Govt. Community
Health Centre, Sheoganj.
----Petitioners
Versus
Asha W/o Shri Fata Ram, Aged About 47 Years, By Caste
Ghanchi, R/o Khejadiya, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 11/03/2022 This writ petition has been filed by the State being aggrieved with the order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Sirohi, District Sirohi (for short 'the PLA').
Vide order dated 30.06.2021, the PLA has directed the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of passing of the said order and if the same is not paid within the stipulated time, the respondent is entitled to get interest on the said amount @ 6% per annum.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent has filed an application under Section 22 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 stating therein that she underwent procedure of vasectomy (Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:39:28 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-16538/2021] on 19.11.2011 at Government Community and Health Center, Sheoganj. A copy of the vasectomy certificate was also issued to the respondent. The respondent has made a complaint that despite having the vasectomy on 19.11.2011, she gave birth to a baby child on 03.01.2017. The respondent claimed that the vasectomy procedure has failed and on account of that, she was forced to give birth to an unwanted child and, therefore, she may be granted compensation for that.
The State has objected the respondent's claim before the PLA, however, the PLA after hearing counsel for the parties has passed the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order passed by the PLA is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside as no finding has been recorded by the PLA that there was negligence on the part of the Doctor, who has performed the vasectomy.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench's decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Geeta Devi and Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (DB Spl. Appeal Writ No.581/2013, decided on 01.11.2017).
Learned counsel for the petitioners thus prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition.
The Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Geeta Devi's case (supra) while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab vs. Shivram & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) WLC (SC) 500 has held that once medical negligency is proved on the part of the Doctor concerned, (Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:39:28 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-16538/2021] damages can be granted. It is also held that any claim as to damages for financial burden, regarding the upbringing and maintenance of the child so conceived after having undergone a sterilization operation, is not sustainable once the parents decide to continue the pregnancy to full term until birth of the child.
Admittedly, the PLA has not recorded any finding to the effect that there was negligence on the part of Doctor concerned, who conducted the vasectomy, in such circumstances, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.6.2021 passed by the PLA is set aside.
However, the respondent is entitled for compensation as per the policy of the State.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 15-Aun/-
(Downloaded on 12/03/2022 at 08:39:28 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)