Smt. Katto Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1052802
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnMar-05-2013
AppellantSmt. Katto Bai
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p. no. 2987 of  2013 5.3.2013 shri nitin khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. heard. alleging   negligence   on   the   part   of   respondent   medical  officers of alleged failure of laparoscopic tubectomy operation,  petitioner  has filed  this  petition seeking compensation  to the  tune of rs.10 lakhs. the   case   of   the   petitioner   is   that   in   a   family   planning  programme launched by respondent no. 3/the block medical  officer, community health center majhouli, district jabalpur  petitioner   underwent     laparoscopic   tubectomy   operation   on  24th december 2008 under the supervision and guidance of the  respondent no. 4 medical officer/superintendent.   it is urged  that despite of being operated she gave birth to a girl child on  20th   march   2010.     alleging   negligence   the   petitioner   seeks  compensation from respondents. it is a matter of dispute as to whether it was the medical  officer   who   was   negligent   or   it   is   the   petitioner   who   was  required to take recourse to the instructions issued to her after  the   operation   was   performed.     it   was   observed   in   state   of  punjab  v.  shiv  ram   and   others  [(2005)   7  scc  1].  that,   merely  because   a   woman   having   undergone   a   sterlisation   operation  became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon  or   his   employer   canno.  be   held   liable   for   compensation   on  account   of   unwanted   pregnancy   or   unwanted   child.     it   was  further observed that claim in such cases can be sustained only  if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing  the surgery.   “the claim in tort can be sustained only if there  was   negligence   on  the   part   of  the   surgeon  in   performing   the  surgery.   the proof of negligence shall have to satisfy bolam's  test.    so   also,   the   surgeon   canno.  be   held   liable   in   contract  unless   the   plaintiff   alleges   and   proves   that   the   surgeon   had  assured 100 % exclusion of pregnancy after the surgery and was  only   on   the   basis   of   such   assurance   that   the   plaintiff   was  persuaded to undergo surgery.”.  in   view   whereof   evidences   have   to   be   led   to   prove   the  negligence, which is not possible in a petition under article 226  of the constitution of india.  for that, the petitioner would have  to file a suit for compensation and prove the negligence of the  surgeon who performed the surgery. in view whereof without recording any opinion on merit,  the petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail  the remedy of claim in tort. c.c. as per rules.  (sanjay yadav) judge vivek tripathi
Judgment:

W.P. No. 2987 Of  2013 5.3.2013 Shri Nitin Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Heard.

Alleging   negligence   on   the   part   of   respondent   Medical  Officers of alleged failure of laparoscopic Tubectomy Operation,  petitioner  has filed  this  petition seeking compensation  to the  tune of Rs.10 lakhs.

The   case   of   the   petitioner   is   that   in   a   family   planning  programme launched by respondent No. 3/the Block Medical  Officer, Community Health Center Majhouli, District Jabalpur  petitioner   underwent     laparoscopic   Tubectomy   Operation   on  24th December 2008 under the supervision and guidance of the  respondent No. 4 Medical Officer/Superintendent.   It is urged  that despite of being operated she gave birth to a girl child on  20th   March   2010.

    Alleging   negligence   the   petitioner   seeks  compensation from respondents.

It is a matter of dispute as to whether it was the medical  officer   who   was   negligent   or   it   is   the   petitioner   who   was  required to take recourse to the instructions issued to her after  the   operation   was   performed.

    It   was   observed   in   State   of  Punjab  v.  Shiv  Ram   and   others  [(2005)   7  SCC  1].  that,   merely  because   a   woman   having   undergone   a   sterlisation   operation  became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon  or   his   employer   canNo.  be   held   liable   for   compensation   on  account   of   unwanted   pregnancy   or   unwanted   child.

    It   was  further observed that claim in such cases can be sustained only  if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing  the surgery.   “The claim in tort can be sustained only if there  was   negligence   on  the   part   of  the   surgeon  in   performing   the  surgery.   The proof of negligence shall have to satisfy Bolam's  test.

   So   also,   the   surgeon   canNo.  be   held   liable   in   contract  unless   the   plaintiff   alleges   and   proves   that   the   surgeon   had  assured 100 % exclusion of pregnancy after the surgery and was  only   on   the   basis   of   such   assurance   that   the   plaintiff   was  persuaded to undergo surgery.”

.  In   view   whereof   evidences   have   to   be   led   to   prove   the  negligence, which is not possible in a petition under Article 226  of the Constitution of India.  For that, the petitioner would have  to file a suit for compensation and prove the negligence of the  Surgeon who performed the surgery.

In view whereof without recording any opinion on merit,  the petition is dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail  the remedy of claim in tort.

C.c. as per rules.

 (SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi