Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Rajkumari Mekle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 October, 2022

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                            1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     AT GWALIOR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
              ON THE 18th OF OCTOBER, 2022

             WRIT PETITION No. 22819 of 2022

      BETWEEN:-

      SMT. RAJKUMARI MEKLE W/O
      BHARAT M MEKLE, AGE 33 YEARS
      AROUND,         OCCUPATION:
      HOUSEWIFE, R/O PALAIYAJI KE
      PASS,  GOLPAHADIYA,     GIRD,
      LASHKAR, GWALIOR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)
                                         ........PETITOINER

      (BY SHRI SAURABH BHELSEWALE - ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.    THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
      PRINCIPAL         SECRETARY,
      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &
      FAMILY WELFARE,     VALLABH
      BHAWAN, BHOPAL
2.    THE   COLLECTOR,    DISTRICT
      GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3.    MUNICIPAL       CORPORATION
      GWALIOR     THROUGH    CHIEF
      MUNICIPAL OFFICER, OFFICE
      CITY CENTER, MCG PREMISES
      (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.    IN CHARGE MEDICAL OFFICER,
      GOVERNMENT             CIVIL
      DISPENSARY,    GOLPAHADIYA,
                                            2

       GWLAIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           ........RESPONDENTS

        (SHRI SUSHANT TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the

following:

                                      ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

"7.1 That, the appropriate action may kindly be taken against erring officials along with respondent no.4 who have conducted the aforesaid sterilization operation. 7.2 That, respondents may kindly be directed to give compensation i. e. Rs 5,00,000/- to present petitioner for her mental or physical agony and for the suffering of present petitioner due to unwanted pregnancy.
7.3 Any other relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe case.
7.3 Costs be awarded to the petitioner."

It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had undergone a sterilization operation but in spite of that, she has conceived and, thus, it is clear that it is a case of medical negligence.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to consider the scope of interference in the medical negligence.

The Supreme Court in the cases case of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Another, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1, Dr. Suresh Gupta v.

3

Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 422, Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and Others Vs. Master Rishabh Sharma and Others, reported in (2020) 6 SCC 501, S.K. Jhunjhunwala Vs. Dhanwanti Kaur and Another, reported in, (2019) 2 SCC 282, has dealt with the question of medical negligence.

If the facts of the present case are considered, then it is clear that petitioner is complaining of failure of sterilization operation. Nothing has been placed on record to show that as per medical literature, there is a zero percent chances of failure of sterilization operation.

Be that whatever it may.

Except by saying that sterilization operation has failed, nothing has been placed on record to show the medical negligence. No opinion of the expert has been placed on record.

Since disputed questions of facts are involved, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition.

At this stage, counsel for petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a civil suit to prove the medical negligence and for payment of compensation.

Since the questions involved in the present case are disputed question of facts, accordingly, the prayer for withdrawal is accepted with aforesaid liberty.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Aman AMAN TIWARI 2022.10.18 19:15:44 +05'30'