1 CWP No.13043/2008 Smt.Sunita & anr. V. The State of Raj. & ors. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13043/2008 Smt.Sunita and another V. State of Rajasthan and others Date of order ::: November 19, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. S.L.Songara, for the petitioners 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 petitioners have claimed compensation to enable them to bring up the unwanted child born to petitioner No.1 Sunita on account of negligence of the Doctor, who performed sterilization operation. (3) The tubectomy operation on 13.12.2004 was undertaken by the Junior Specialist and Incharge, Community Health Centre, Jamwa Ramgarh (Jaipur) and even after the said 2 CWP No.13043/2008 Smt.Sunita & anr. V. The State of Raj. & ors. operation, the petitioner No.1 delivered a child on 29.1.2007. Further case of the petitioners 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 the petitioners are claiming the 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 petitioners is that even after sterilization operation, the petitioner No.1` gave birth to a child on 29.1.2007 on account of negligence of the Doctor for which she is entitled for compensation. Counsel for the petitioners 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 3 CWP No.13043/2008 Smt.Sunita & anr. V. The State of Raj. & ors. the case of Sita Bai (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.13043/2008 Smt.Sunita & anr. V. The State of Raj. & 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 petitioners 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 petitioners feel aggrieved by their decision, they will be free to avail remedy available to them under law. (9) With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (P.S. ASOPA) J. G ओpa ल