Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)State Of Haryana & Ors vs Smt. Santra on 24 April, 2000
2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 87 in which while referring to the decision in
the case of Smt. Santra (Supra), this Court held that until and
unless negligence is proved, the Surgeon is not liable to pay the
damages.
State Of Punjab vs Shiv Ram & Ors on 25 August, 2005
As a matter of fact, the decision in the case of Shiv Ram
and others (supra) is fully applicable to the facts and
circumstances of this case. The plaintiff has failed to highlight any
negligence on the part of respondent No.1, who had the experience
of conducting 1200 to 1500 tubectomy operations every year.
Moreover, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff would make a
complaint about her pregnancy after 7½ months and would remain
under an impression allegedly given by the Doctor that she is
having pain in her abdomen because of the operation when she had
already delivered six children. Otherwise, once the woman misses
the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor
and seek medical advice. Section 3(2) read with Explanation II
thereto, of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
provides under the law, a valid and legal ground for termination of
RSA No.3079 of 2002 -6-
pregnancy. If the woman has suffered an unwanted pregnancy, it
can be terminated which is legal and permissible under the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. There are several alternative
methods of female sterilization operations which are recognised by
medical science of today. Some of them are more popular because
of being less complicated, requiring minimal body invasion and
least confinement in the hospital. However, none is foolproof and
no prevalent method of sterilisation guarantees 100% success. The
causes for failure can well be attributable to the natural
functioning of the human body and not necessarily attributable to
any failure on the part of the surgeon. Authoritative textbooks on
gynaecology and empirical researches which have been carried out,
recognize the failure rate of 0.3% to 7% depending on the technique
chosen out of the several recognised and accepted ones. The
technique which may be foolproof is the removal of the uterus itself
but that is not considered advisable. It may be resorted to only
when such procedure is considered necessary to be performed for
purposes other than merely family planning.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana And Ors. vs Smt. Amrawati on 23 January, 2008
He has further relied upon a decision of this Court in
the case of "State of Haryana and others Vs. Smt. Amrawati"
1