Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chaandi Bai Bheel vs State & Ors on 6 April, 2017
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10703 / 2016
Chaandi Bai Bheel W/o Shri Udai Lal Bheel, aged about 30 years,
R/o Kesarkhedi, Tehsil Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary (Health & Family
Welfare), Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Chittorgarh, District-
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
3. Govt. Community Health Centre, Bhoopalsagar, District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) through its head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, through Chairperson,
District Collector, District-Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat, Mr. Manish Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Ms Swetha Bora for Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
Order 06/04/2017 Issue notice.
Ms Swetha Bora accepts the notices on behalf of the respondents. Service is, therefore, complete.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is finally heard at this stage.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the State respondents to compensate her for an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme for failure of her sterilization.
(2 of 3) [CW-10703/2016] The case of the petitioner is that the respondents have fully and adequately failed to implement the schemes for safe sterilization and due to failure of sterilization, this has jeopardized the petitioner's health and violated her fundamental rights. Relying on Naval Vs. Union of India: 2009(1) RLW 865 (Raj.), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner may be disposed of in the light of the directions as issued in Naval's case (supra). In Naval's case, following directions were issued :-
"11. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.2 underwent sterilisation operation in 2001, she conceived and delivered a child in 2002, the negligence on the part of the Doctor is prima facie made out. Since sterilisation operation is done in order to prevent pregnancy, since in the present case, petitioner No.2 became pregnant despite the sterilisation operation, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (a thing speaks for itself) can certainly be invoked. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to direct the petitioners to file representation before the appropriate authority for seeking compensation from the Central Government. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners case sympathetically in the light of circular July 06, 2006 and to pass the necessary orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment."
In view of the above directions, this petition is also disposed of with the directions to the respondents to decide the fresh representation of the petitioner sympathetically within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith copy of this order. The petitioner may submit her fresh (3 of 3) [CW-10703/2016] representation within fifteen days from the date of the order. If the petitioner is still dissatisfied with the outcome of her representation, she shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to her under the law.
(SANGEET LODHA)J. vij146