Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Government vs Uma Maheswari on 17 August, 2021
Author: P.T.Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.602 of 2021 &
CMP No.12664 of 2021
1. Tamil Nadu Government
Rep. By the District Collector,
Collectorate, Dharmapuri District.
2. The Assistant Director,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Director,
Government Primary Health Centre,
Thenampettai, Chennai. ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Uma Maheswari, W/o.Kanmani
2. Palaniammal, Dr.Annamalai
Medical Officer, Government Primary Health Centre,
Kelamangalam, Thenkanikottai Taluk,
Krishnagiri District.
3. Dr.Lalitha, Assistant Doctor,
Govt. Primary Health Centre,
Marandahalli, Palacode Taluk,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
Dharmapuri District. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 17.10.2019
made in A.S.No.21 of 2018 on he file of the Principal District Judge,
Dharmapuri confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2016
made in O.S.No.23 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,
Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr. M.R.Gokulkrishnan
JUDGMENT
The Government is the appellant before this Court, challenging the decree directing them to pay compensation to the first respondent/plaintiff for a surgery that had been botched up.
2. The facts in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff who is the first respondent herein had approached Marandahalli Primary Health Centre for undergoing an abortion. The plaintiff sought to terminate her pregnancy as they were suffering from huge poverty and she was already the mother of two children, a male https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/8 and female. After the abortion was done, she was also administered family planning. She remained in the hospital for two days and had returned to home. Thereafter, within two months, the plaintiff was shocked to learn that she was pregnant. When the plaintiff had taken up the matter with the defendants 1 and 2 who were the doctors, they apologised and stated that they had wrongly conducted the operation and sought to pacify the plaintiff not to initiate any proceeding. By reason of this negligence, the plaintiff had to undergo an unwanted pregnancy which culminated in the birth of a girl child. The plaintiff who was already finding it hard to maintain two children, was forced to feed a third mouth. Therefore, she sought for a compensation of Rs.4 lacs.
3.The Written Statement was filed by the fourth defendant which was adopted by the other defendants. The fourth defendant would contend that the plaintiff while undergoing the surgery was very much aware that there was a chance of the surgery not being successful and there were chances of her once again getting pregnancy. Tehrefore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/8 they would contend that the plaintiff had undergone the surgery knowing its flip side. They also contended that the plaintiff had not come back to the Health Centre after she had conceived post-surgery. The defendants also set up a defence that the plaintiff had herself removed the stitches elsewhere and had not come back to the Primary Health Centre and this could have also contributed to her conceiving once again.
4.The learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri, had framed the following issues in O.S.No.23 of 2007:
“(1)thjp tHf;Fiuapy; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ
nghy; gpujpthjpfspd; ftdf;Fiwthy;
thjpf;F ghjpg;g[ Vw;gl;ljh/>
(2)thjp ec;&l<l;l bjhif bgw
jFjpahdtuh mg;gobadpy; vt;tst[ bjhif>
(3)ntW vd;d ghpfhuk;>”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/8
5.The plaintiff had examined herself as PW1 and had marked Exs.A1 to A5. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant has examined herself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1.
6.The learned Judge on perusing the evidence came to the conclusion that there has been negligence on the side of the defendants and had also observed that the defendants had deliberately kept away the medical records from the scrutiny of the Court and ultimately, decreed the suit directing defendants 1, 3 & 5 to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs within a period of two months from the date of the Judgment.
7.Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the defendants 3 to 5 had filed A.S.No.21 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. The learned Judge confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/8
8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants would submit that the Courts below have not considered the evidence put across by the defendants and also the fact that there is a remote chance of surgery failing and that such failure cannot be attributed to the negligence of the Medical Officers who had done the surgery.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the records.
10.Both the Courts below have dealt with in extenso the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary and they have considered the oral evidence of the plaintiff/PW1 wherein she had stated that despite undergoing sterilization operation, she had conceived immediately which clearly proves the negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants, who pleaded that the surgery was done in a proper manner and that the subsequent pregnancy was only on account of the negligence of the plaintiff, have not even filed the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 6/8 medical records to substantiate their contention. They have only filed the Consent Form signed by the plaintiff but had not let in any evidence to show as to what procedure and technique had been undertaken by them for sterilization and the nature of the treatment administered by them on the plaintiff.
11.In the absence of evidence to rebut the claim of the plaintiff, the Courts below have rightly held the negligence on the part of the defendants and awarded compensation. I am not persuaded to hold otherwise. Further, the appellants have not made out any substantial questions of law warranting interference of this Court.
12. Hence, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.08.2021
Index : Yes
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7/8
P.T.ASHA, J
kal
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2.The Subordinate Judge,
Dharmapuri.
S.A.No.602 of 2021 &
CMP No.12664 of 2021
17.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
8/8