Held that since the trial court dismissed the suit for damages against government doctors under Section 8 of the Medical Treatment of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the pauper application for pursuing the first appeal was not maintainable.
Pauper application and first appeal dismissed without order of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.341/2016
Smt. Prem W/o Shri Sharwan, aged about 36 years, R/o Near Poultry Farm, Khatipura, Jaipur
----Appellant/plaintiff
Versus
----Respondents/defendants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R K Daga Mr. Prashant Daga
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
05/08/2022
(2 of 4)
[CFA-341/2016]
forma pauperis (indigent person) before the trial court however, the trial court has dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.05.2016, therefore, applicant may be permitted to pursue the first appeal as an indigent person in view of provision of Order 44 Rule 1 CPC.
(3 of 4) [CFA-341/2016]
1971”) [now the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021].
“ 8. Protection of action taken in good faith.—
No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any registered medical practitioner for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.”
(4 of 4)
[CFA-341/2016]
Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre reported in [(2010) 3 SCC 480], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that on availability of such factual matrix and in the given facts and circumstances, no negligence on the part of government doctors can be held. There are ample reasons for failure of termination of pregnancy operation and merely on that account, any government doctor who acted in good faith in discharge of his duties in performing the operation, cannot be held negligent.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
SAURABH/C-1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant-applicant is entitled to pursue the first appeal as an indigent person after the trial court dismissed her suit.
Whether the suit for damages against government doctors is maintainable given the protection under Section 8 of the Medical Treatment of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. IshfaqReferred¶11
Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq [(2009) 3 SCC 1] · Who else cites this
Jacob Mathew (Dr.) vs. State of PunjabReferred¶11
Jacob Mathew (Dr.) vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 3 CPJ 9 (SC)]
Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research CentreReferred¶11
Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre [(2010) 3 SCC 480] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Prem W/o Shri Sharwan
State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department
Dr. Prabha Luhadiya Through Janana Hospital
Dr. Nupur
Dr. Shasha
Sudeesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
