Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kari Bai vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 May, 2019
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16351/2018
1. Kari Bai W/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Bilesari, Village Panchayat Kulthana, Tehsil
And District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
2. Anita Bai W/o Shri Lala Ram Meena,, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Kesarpura, Village Panchayat Devgarh,
Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
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. District Hospital Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh
Through Its Head.
4. Govt. Primary Health Center, Devgarh, District Pratapgarh
Through Its Head.
5. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through
Chairperson District Collector, District- Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Kumawat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 28/05/2019
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. By the instant petition, the petitioners seek direction to the State Government to compensate them for an amount of (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 06:59:57 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-16351/2018] Rs.30,000/- under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme for failure of their sterilization.
3. The case of the petitioners is that respondents have failed to fully implement the schemes for safe sterilization and the failure of sterilization, conducted upon them has jeopardized the petitioners' health and violated their 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 petitioners submits that case of the petitioners 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."
4. In view of the above submissions, the petitioners are 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 (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 06:59:57 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-16351/2018] receipt thereof. If any of the petitioners' grievances still survive after disposal of the representation, they shall be at liberty to take recourse of the appropriate legal remedy for the redressal thereof.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
93-Zeeshan/-
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 06:59:57 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)