RSA No.4699 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4699 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Paramjit Kaur .....Appellant Versus Senior Medical Officer and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.K.Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Paramjit Kaur had filed a suit for recovery. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the plaintiff had got herself operated for the purpose of family planning. Plaintiff already had two children and got a Tubectomy performed from respondent No.1 on 17.3.1997 to avoid future pregnancy. Despite the operation performed by respondent No.1, plaintiff became pregnant. Plaintiff delivered a male child in a private hospital. Hence, the suit for recovery of damages was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement averred that no entry RSA No.4699 of 2010 2 with regard to Tubectomy performed on the plaintiff was available in the record of the hospital. No surgery was performed on the plaintiff on 17.3.1997 as alleged. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from defendants as prayed for ?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4.Relief” The Civil Judge (Senior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 6.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 16.1.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of ` 10,00,000/- on account of birth of a child although she had undergone an operation/tubectomy on 17.3.1997. Plaintiff, however, failed to prove on record any medical certificate to establish that she had undergone the operation on 17.3.1997. Defendants produced on record the application submitted by the plaintiff for tubectomy on 17.3.1998. As per admission record of the plaintiff, she had been admitted in the hospital on 17.3.1998 but tubectomy was not performed as tubes were found fixed and there was pelvic inflammation. Thus, as per the RSA No.4699 of 2010 3 hospital record, Tubectomy had not been performed on the plaintiff. Plaintiff had failed to rebut the said evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge May 17 , 2011 arya