Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Gurjar vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 May, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5785/2019
Santosh Gurjar W/o Shri Bharatlal, Aged About 31 Years, Village
Acalpur Panchayat Samiti Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary (Health
And Family Welfare), Department Of Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Pratapgarh, District
Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
3. Govt. Community Health Centre Choti Sadri, Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh Through Its Head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through
Chairperson, District Collector, District- Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Kumawat
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment / Order 01/05/2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the State Government to compensate her for an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme for failure of her sterilization.
The case of the petitioner is that respondents have failed to fully implement the schemes for safe sterilization and the (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:13:37 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-5785/2019] failure of sterilization, conducted upon her has jeopardized the petitioner's health and violated her fundamental rights. Relying on the Single Bench Judgment in the case of Naval Vs. Union of India reported in 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)wherein, following directions were given:-
"11. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.2 under went 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 submissions, the petitioner is given liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority with a copy of this order. Upon receiving such representation, the competent authority shall objectively consider and decide the same by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the receipt thereof. If any of the (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:13:37 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-5785/2019] petitioner's grievances still survive after disposal of the representation, she shall be at liberty to take recourse of the appropriate legal remedy for the redressal thereof.
The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J ns. 52-1/-(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 01:13:37 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)