Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Teena vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 27 November, 2017
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13758 / 2017
Chaandi W/o Shri Mohan Lal Bheel, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Mawra, Gram Panchayat Akya, 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, Mandaphiya, District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) Through Its Head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through Chairperson,
District Collector, District- Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4201 / 2017
Mohani W/o Shri Nand Lal Bheel, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Badodiya, Gram Panchayat Udpura, Tehsil & 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. Women and Child Hospital Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
Through Its Head
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through Chairperson,
District Collector, District- Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
(2 of 4)
[ CW-13758/2017]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7266 / 2017
Teena W/o Shri Ratan Lal Bheel, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ganpata Khera, Gram Panchayat Shukhwada, 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. General Hospital, Nimbahera Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
Through Its Head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through Chairperson,
District Collector, District- Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7304 / 2017
Sushila W/o Shri Kalu Lal Nayak, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Arniyan Panth, Gram Panchayt Arniyan Panth, Tehsil & 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. Aditya Jan Sewa Trust, Saava District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
Through Its Head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through Chairperson,
District Collector, District- Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(3 of 4)
[ CW-13758/2017]
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 27/11/2017 Issue notice.
Mr. Anil Bissa accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Both the counsel prayed that these writ petitions be disposed of in terms of order dated 12.05.2016 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14781/2015 and four connected petitions.
The order dated 12.05.2016 reads as under:-
"Issue notice.
Mr. Anil Bissa accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. These five writ petitions involve common question of law, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
By the instant petitions, the petitioners seek directions to the State respondents to compensate them for an amount of Rs.30,000/- each under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme for failure of their sterilization.
The case of the petitioners is that respondents have fully and adequately failed to implement the schemes for safe sterilization and due to failure of sterilization, this has jeopardized the petitioners' health and violated their fundamental rights. Relying on Naval Vs. Union of India:
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). 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 (4 of 4) [ CW-13758/2017] 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, these petitions are disposed of with the directions to the respondents to decide the fresh representation of the petitioners sympathetically within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation alongwith copy of this order. The petitioners may submit their fresh representations within fifteen days from the date of the order. If the petitioners are still dissatisfied with the outcome of their representations, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to them under law.
A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files."
In view of the joint prayer made by both the counsel these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the fresh representations of the petitioners sympathetically within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representations along with the copy of this order. The petitioners may submit their fresh representations within fifteen days from the date of this order. If the petitioners are still dissatisfied with the outcome of their representations, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to them under law.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)J. Taruna