IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 536 of 2009(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- JOSE ELLICKAL, ANNUR POST., MOORIKOVAL, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS AND THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, GRADE-1, KANHAMGAD MUNICIPALITY, KASARAGOD 2. SECRETARY KANHAMGAD MUNICIPALITY KASARAGOD. 3. THE CHIEF REGISTRAR OF BIRTH AND DEATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADDL.4 - PRIYADARSINI HOSPITAL, DEEPA NURSING HOME, KUNNUMMAL P.O., KANHANGAD REP BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR - IS IMPLEADED AS ADDTIIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 13.1.2009 IN I.A. NO. 509/09. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA ADVS. SRI.G.MOHAN FOR ADDL.R4 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 536 of 2009(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.12.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 38040/2008 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 15582/08 DATED 23.12.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT SHOWS THAT EXT.P3 ORDER FORWARDED AT 17.27 HRS FROM KANHAMGAD H.P.O. ON 24.12.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONdent TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H1/15582/08 DATED 31.12.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE BAPITISM CERTIFICATE DATED 18.09.2008 ISSUED BY ST.GEORGE CHURCH ODAYAMCHAL. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE S.S.L.C. BOOK. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PASSPORT. EXT.P10 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PROTION OF THE BIRTH REGISTER. EXT.P11 - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER. EXT.P12 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED ON 09.01.2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) - TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.12.2008 ADDRESSED TO THE MANAGER OF THE DEEPA NURSING HOME, BY THE MUNICIPALITY EXT.R1(c) - TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO. 208 OF THE HOSPITAL REGISTER. EXT.R1(d) - TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REPORT BOOK OF THE HOSPITAL. EXT.R1(e) - TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTHCERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21.1.2004. EXT.R1(f) - TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 29.12.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1(g) - TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER WITHOUT DATE. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No.536 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the father of Asha Jose. According to the petitioner, his daughter Asha Jose was born on 23.10.1984 in the 4th respondent's hospital. However, by mistake, the intimation from the hospital authorities to the 1st respondent mentioned the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter as 22.10.1984. According to the petitioner, petitioner's wife Elsamma was admitted in the 4th respondent's nursing home one week prior to 23.10.1984. Labour pain started on 10.30 p.m. on 22.10.1984 and she was taken to operation theater at about 12.30 a.m. on 23.10.1984. Caeserian Section was done at about 1 a.m. on 23.10.1984, pursuant to which only petitioner's daughter Asha Jose was born. Therefore according to the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter is 23.10.1984 and not 22.10.1984. The petitioner therefore submits that the 1st respondent may be directed to correct the birth register accordingly. The petitioner has now produced Exts.P10 and P11, which are the only records now available with the 4th respondent in respect of the birth of the petitioner's daughter. The petitioner would contend that as is clear from Ext.P10, the birth intimation register maintained by the 4th respondent, the register was closed on 22.10.1984 with entry 59 and thereafter entry 60 was included in that register which should have been an W.P(C)No.536 of 2009 - 2 - entry of 23.10.1984 but it has been shown as 22.10.1984. The petitioner also points out that in between entries 59 and 60 two columns are left blank and the hospital authorities had made an initial with date 22.10.1984. Therefore according to the petitioner evidently the date as against entry 60 which relates to the petitioner's daughter was a mistake and instead of 23.10.1984, the date 22.10.1984 was shown therein. He further points out that in Ext.P11 admission register 22.10.1984 is mentioned as the date of the operation and baby extraction time is shown as 10.40 pm, but that entry as made only on 1.11.1984. According to the petitioner these documents would clearly show that the hospital authorities have made a mistake regarding the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter. An affidavit and additional affidavit have been filed by the 1st respondent who does not dispute Exts.P10 and P11. He also submits that he cannot now with any amount of certainty say anything about the actual facts because the registers now referred to were registers maintained by the former owners of the nursing home. He can only swear to what is seen therein. The counsel for the Municipality with the help of the counter affidavit would submit that they are helpless in the matter since they have to go only by intimation received from the hospital. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in details. 3. At the outset I note that the petitioner or his daughter would not gain anything by stating wrong facts about the date of birth of the petitioner's daughter. Whether it is at 10.40 p.m. on 22.10.1984 or 1 a.m. on 23.10.1984, W.P(C)No.536 of 2009 - 3 - it would not make much difference except that if 22.10.1984 is accepted as the date of birth, the petitioner's daughter would have to go through the cumbersome process of getting the petitioner's daughter's school records corrected appropriately, which would delay the matter at least for quite some time. From Ext.P10, I find that there is considerable force in the contentions raised by the petitioner. As pointed out by the petitioner the last entry for 22.10.1984 in Ext.P10 is 59. Therefore the next entry in Ext.P10 register should start with the date 23.10.1984. But here the next entry namely entry 60 again starts with 22.10.1984 which appears to be a mistake. That being so, I am of opinion that the 1st respondent should take a second look into the matter based on above findings. Accordingly the 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and see whether on the basis of the above findings the date of birth entered in the 1st respondent's register in respect of the petitioner's daughter can be appropriately corrected as a mistake committed by the 4th respondent hospital. Orders in this regard shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs