Disposed

Santosh Devi and Anr. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2012CW/3680/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner sought compensation for failed sterilization. Court directed authorities to decide the representation afresh based on Government of India Circular dated 06.07.2006 and State order dated 03.01.2007, disposing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation; authorities to decide within two months based on C.G. Circular dt.06.07.2006 and S.G. order dt.03.01.2007.

Santosh Devi and Anr. Vs State of Raj and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

CWP-3680/2004

¶2

¶3

In The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3680/2004 Santosh Devi & anr.. Vs. State of Rajasthan & anr.

¶5

Date Of Order :: 05.11.2012

¶6

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi

¶7

Mr. Rajendra Soni, for petitioners Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AGC, for respondents

¶8

Petitioner has claimed compensation to enable her to bring up the unwanted child born to her on account of negligence of the doctor while performing sterilization operation on 16/03/2002.

¶9

Counsel submits that issue raised herein is covered by judgment dt.25/05/2007 of Coordinate Bench in Smt. Sita Bai Vs. State (CWP1405/2005) ; dt.03/07/2007 in Smt.Pana Bai Vs. State (CWP-1094/2003) and dt.21/11/2008 in Smt. Premwati Vs. State (CWP-2137/2007) wherein respondents were directed to decide the representation afresh given by petitioners after taking note of Circular dt.06/07/2006 of Government of India. Relevant part of judgment (supra) in Sita Bai Vs. State (supra) wherein Circular has been quoted ad infra:

¶10

“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

CWP-3680/2004

ad infra:

“The package provided under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme is as follows:

¶15

Section I:

¶16

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.

¶17

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/-

¶18

To be reimbursed on the basis of actual expenditure incurred, not exceeding Rs.20,000/-.”

¶19

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.”

¶20

It has also been informed that the State Government, considering the Family Insurance Scheme w.e.f. 29/11/2006, issued an order dt.03/01/2007 providing package under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme as under:

¶21

CWP-3680/2004

¶22

¶23

Section	Coverage	Limits
IA	Death due to sterilization in hospital or within 7 days from the date of discharge from the hospital	Rs.2 lakh
IB	Death due to sterilization within 8 – 30 days from the date of discharge from the hospital	Rs. 50,000/-
IC	Failure of Sterilization leading/non-leading to child birth	Rs.25,000/-
ID	Cost of treatment upto 60 days arising out of complication from the date of discharge	Actual not exceeding Rs.25,000/-
II	Indemnity insurance per Doctor but not more then 4 in ayear	`Up to Rs.2 Lakh per claim.

¶24

In view of the Circular dt.06/07/2006 and dt.03/01/2007 issued by the Government of India (supra), there is no need to decide the petition on merits and this Court is of the opinion that in the light of judgment in Smt. Sita Bai Vs. State (supra) the petitioner may submit representation to the State Government within four weeks; and if submitted the authority may decide case of petitioner in the light of Circular dt.06/07/2006 and dt.03/01/2007 in view of the package which was applicable at the relevant point of time within two months thereafter assigning reasons and communicate decision to the petitioner, who if feels aggrieved, will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law. Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Ajay Rastogi),J.

¶26

Raghu/-p.3 3680-CW-2004-Final-Sterlisation failed.doc Certificate: -All corrections have been

¶27

CWP-3680/2004

¶28

¶29

incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed/Raghu,PAJW

Santosh Devi and Anr. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi and Anr. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariom Meena and Ors. Vs University of Raj and Anr.

Narendra Basera and Ors. Vs University of Raj and Anr.

M/S Pinkcity Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Finance Departmentors

Daya @ Dayawati Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Lalita Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State Vs Basanti Lal and Ors.