Allowed

Shriya Chhanchan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC24 Jun 2022WP(C)/9594/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Granting compensation of Rs.30,000 and court costs of Rs.20,000 to a petitioner who conceived after a sterilization operation. The court held the State liable for not following strict screening procedures and entitled the petitioner to payment. Petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Compensation paid within three weeks amounting to Rs.30,000/ (failure of sterilization) and Rs.20,000/- court costs.

Shriya Chhanchan Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9594 of 2017 (Through hybrid mode)

¶3

Shriya Chhanchan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Arjuna Ch. Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties

¶8

Mr. Sailaja Nanda Das, Advocate (Additional Standing Counsel)

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

¶10

ORDER 24.06.2022

¶11

Order No.

¶12

07. 1. Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client underwent sterilization procedure conducted by the State. In spite thereof, she conceived and delivered a child. She is in involved financial condition, unable to meet expenses of the child and hence has claimed compensation. The sterilization procedure was undertaken by petitioner on 2^nd January, 2014.

¶13

On earlier date of hearing Mr. Behera had relied on Standards for Female and Male Sterilization Services issued in October, 2006 by Research Studies and Standards Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Under Standards for Female sterilization there is sub-

¶14

heading 1.4.2 on Clinical Assessment and Screening of Clients, to be made

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

prior to the operation. Clause-b under the sub-heading has entry-v, which says as under.

¶18

“Menstrual history: Date of last menstrual period and current pregnancy status.”

¶19

He submits, this procedure must have been followed before the operation.

¶20

Having done that State cannot turn around and say that the child was born on a full term delivery, to allege that his client was pregnant at the time sterilization operation was done. He relies on manual for family planning indemnity scheme issued in October, 2013 by Family Planning Division, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, in which available benefit include and provide for limit of Rs.30,000/- cover on failure of sterilization.

¶21

Mr. Das, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. He submits, clinical assessment and screening of petitioner revealed that she had her last menstrual cycle on 22^nd December, 2013. The sterilization operation was conducted, as aforesaid, on 2^nd January, 2014. On query from Court he submits, there is no record regarding current pregnancy status as on date of sterilization operation.

¶22

Mr. Das submits, petitioner did not follow up after the sterilization

¶23

operation. She had given undertaken that if she missed her menstrual cycle immediately after the operation, she was to report to the clinic and, in the

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

circumstances, obtain Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP). Not having done so, petitioner now cannot allege failure of the procedure nor claim compensation. Mr. Behera in reply refers to paragraphs 4 in the petition, in which, inter alia, following has been stated.

¶27

“That is submitted that after the sterilization the petitioner felt herself uneasy and went to the hospital opp. Party the No.5 in where the said opp. Party No.5 examined the petitioner and suggested to take rest for some days. Though the petitioner disclosed before him regarding stoppage of her regular menstruation cycle.........”

¶28

On behalf of State counter has been filed. Paragraph 6 from the counter is reproduced below.

¶29

“ 6. That the averments made in Para-4 of the writ petition are not correct. As ascertain from O.P. No.5 this deponent humbly submits that the allegations made by petitioner in this para are all false and fabricated.”

¶30

There appears to have been omission by the State in obtaining current

¶31

pregnancy status before conducting sterilization operation on petitioner. Furthermore, paragraph 6 in the counter is not a specific denial on averments made by petitioner in paragraph 4 of the petition. The counter has been affirmed as an affidavit by Chief District Medical Officer. The vague denial in paragraph 6 on behalf of the doctor is insufficient basis to disbelieve petitioner’s averments in paragraph 4.

¶32

Page 3 of 4

¶33

// 4 //

¶34

State not having itself followed the procedure to the letter cannot turn

¶35

around and say that petitioner had omitted to act as per undertaking given by her, to report that she missed menstrual cycle after the operation. As aforesaid analysis of pleadings in paragraphs 4 and 6, respectively of the petition and counter, do not support this contention of State.

¶36

It appears, the sterilization operation resulted in failure to prevent the pregancy. Petitioner is entitled to compensation at par with limit of aforesaid indemnity of Rs.30,000/-. Petitioner will also get cost of

¶37

Rs.20,000/-. The compensation and cost are to be paid within three week of

¶38

communication. Court expects, the money will be spent by petitioner for benefit of the child.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶40

(Arindam Sinha) Judge

¶41

Prasant

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Shriya Chhanchan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriya Chhanchan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Life Insurance Corporation of India , Cutack Vs Permanent Lok Adalat Cantonment Road

Bhagaban Behera Vs State of Odisha

Ganesh Rout Vs State of Odisha

Kanak Behera Vs State of Odisha

Golekha Bihari Bariki Vs State of Odisha

Rabindra Kumar Mallick Vs State of Odisha