1 CWP No.11414/2008 Smt.Ramrati V. State & ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11414/2008 Smt.Ramrati V. State of Rajsthan and others Date of order ::: December 16, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. R.R.Baisla, for the petitioner Dr.A.S.Khangarot, Addl. GA BY THE COURT (1) Since the matter is covered by the judgments of this Court in Smt.Sita Bai V/s State & Ors. – SB Civil Writ Petition No.1405/2005 decided on 25.5.2007 and Smt. Pana Bai V/s State & Ors. – SB Civil Writ Petition No.1094/2003 decided on 3.7.2007, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, the same is being decided at the admission stage. (2) By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.15 lacs towards compensation to enable her to bring up the unwanted child born to her on account of negligence of the Doctor, who performed sterilization operation. (3) The tubectomy operation on 21.1.2006 was undertaken by Dr.Anita Gupta (respondent No.3), at the General Hospital, Karauli and even after the said operation, the petitioner delivered a 2 CWP No.11414/2008 Smt.Ramrati V. State & ors. child on 14.8.2008. Further case of the petitioner is that though the operation is claimed to be successful, but due to negligence of the Doctor, she gave birth to a child, which has resulted in additional burden for which she is claiming above mentioned amount of compensation. (4) The objection raised by the State Government is that the jurisdiction of this Court is not meant for conducting the enquiry regarding negligence in such matters. (5) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that even after sterilization operation, she gave birth to a child on 14.8.2008 on account of negligence of the Doctor for which she is entitled to compensation. Counsel for the petitioner cited two judgment of this Court in case of Smt.Sita Bai V/s State & Ors. – SB Civil Writ Petition No.1405/2005 decided on 25.5.2007 and Smt. Pana Bai V/s State & Ors. – SB Civil Writ Petition No.1094/2003 decided on 3.7.2007,wherein this Court directed the respondents to decide the fresh representation given by the petitioner after taking into consideration the circular dated 6.7.2006 of Government of India. The relevant portion of the said judgment in the case of Sita Bai 3 CWP No.11414/2008 Smt.Ramrati V. State & ors. (supra) wherein the circular has been quoted is as under:- “Counsel has brought to the notice of this court the circular dated 6th July, 2006 which has been circulated to the State Government by Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India. The relevant part whereof is ad infra: “The package provided under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme is as follows: Section I: a) Death due to sterilization in hospital Rs.1,00,000/-. b) Death due to sterilization within 30 days Rs.30,000/- of discharge from hospital. c) Failure of sterilization (including first instance of conception after sterilization) Rs.20,000/- d) Expenses for treatment of medical complications due to sterilization operation (within 60 days of operations) Rs.20,000/- To be reimbursed on the basis of actual expenditure incurred, not exceeding Rs.20,000/-.” U/s.1 of circular dated 6th July, 2006, there is a provision that in case of failure of sterilization (including first instance of conception after sterilization), an incumbent is entitled for Rs.20,000/- which is to be reimbursed by State Government.” (6) Submission of the respondents is that there was no negligence on the part of Doctor and they have further raised the objection of jurisdiction. (7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. (8) Since there is a circular of the 4 CWP No.11414/2008 Smt.Ramrati V. State & ors. Government of India, therefore, I need not adjudicate the matter on merit and I am of the view that it would be appropriate to issue the same direction as has been given in case of Smt. Sita Bai (supra). The petitioner may now submit representation to the State Government within one month and the Government may examine the matter and further pass necessary orders after taking into consideration the circular dated 6th July, 2006 within three months thereafter. If still petitioner feels aggrieved by their decision, she will be free to avail remedy available to her under law. (9) With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (P.S. ASOPA) J. gOpAl