1 CWP No.2228/2009 Smt.Banat Devi Vs. State & ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2228/2009 Smt.Banat Devi V.State of Rajsthan and others Date of order ::: August 26, 2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Naveen Dhuwan, for the petitioner Mr.Vibhuti Bhushan,Dy.Govt.Counsel BY THE COURT (1) Issue notice to the respondents. (2) Mr.Vibhuti Bhushan, Dy.Govt.Counsel is directed to accept the notice. (3) 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. (4) By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed compensation to enable her to bring up the unwanted child born to her on account of negligence of the Doctor, who performed sterilization operation. (5) The tubectomy operation on 5.2.2008 was undertaken by Medical Officer,Govt.Primary 2 CWP No.2228/2009 Smt.Banat Devi Vs. State & ors. Health Centre, Singhana. In January, 2009, the pregnancy test of the petitioner was found positive. In this connection, the Medical Officer Incharge, Govt.Primary Health Centre, Singhana wrote a letter dated 27.1.2009 to the Dy.C.M.& H.O. Jhunjhunu, which is Annexure-3 on record. (6) Thereafter, the petitioner served a notice dated 13.2.2009 to the respondents for granting compensation but nothing has been done. (7) Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that even after sterilization operation, petitioner's pregnancy test has been found to be positive on account of which she is entitled for 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 (supra) wherein the circular has been quoted is as under:- 3 CWP No.2228/2009 Smt.Banat Devi Vs. State & ors. “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.” (8) Submission of counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has got no case and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. (9) Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition and further considered rival submissions of the parties. (10) Since there is a circular of the Government of India, therefore, I need not adjudicate the matter on merit and I am of the 4 CWP No.2228/2009 Smt.Banat Devi Vs. State & ors. 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 6 th 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. (11) With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( . . ) . Gopal