Allowed

District Chief Medical Officer v. Sarita Vaishnav

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CW/1482/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court held that the Permanent Lok-Adalat erred in awarding compensation for failure of a sterilization operation without recording any finding of medical negligence. The court distinguished no negligence being established and was mandatory. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the order awarding Rs. 6 lakh was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Permanent Lok-Adalat dated 11.10.2023 awarding Rs.6,00,000 to the respondent is quashed and set aside.

District Chief Medical Officer Vs Sarita… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22383]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1482/2024

¶4

District Chief Medical Officer, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶5

Block Medical Officer, Merta, Rajasthan.

¶6

Principal Secretary, Health Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Additional Chief Medical And Health Officer, Family Welfare, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sarita Vaishnav W/o Dinesh Ramawat, Aged About 26 Years, Pipar City, Tehsil Pipar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Dr. R.k. Vyas, Medical Officer In-Charge, Community Health Centre, Gotan, Rajasthan.

¶11

District Collector, Nagaur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms	Vandaha Bhanshali, AGC
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Awar Dan Ujjawal.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶15

Order

¶16

17/05/2024

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶18

The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 11.10.2023 whereby the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Merta District Nagaur has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 22B of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 and awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) in favour of respondent No.1.

¶19

Briefly the facts necessary to be noted in the present case are that the respondent No.1 had undergone an operation for sterilization on 22.12.2020 at Community Health Centre, Gotan.

[2024:RJ-JD:22383]

[CW-1482/2024]

(2 of 4)

After two years of Sterilization operation, the respondent No.1 became pregnant and she gave birth to her third child. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 preferred an application under Section 22B of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 before the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Merta District Nagaur for grant of compensation. The Permanent Lok-Adalat after hearing counsel for the parties allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 11.10.2023 and awarded a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-(Rupees Six Lakhs only) in favour of respondent No.1 on the count of failure of Sterilization Operation performed upon her in the year 2020. Hence, present writ petition has been filed by the respondent State.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that in the entire order passed by learned Permanent Lok-Adalat, Merta, no finding with regard to any negligence on the part of the doctor performing the Sterilization Operation has been recorded. She further submits since no finding with regard to any negligence on the part of the doctor performing the Sterilization Operation has been recorded by the Permanent Lok-Adalat, Merta, therefore, the direction to pay compensation to the respondent No.1 is incorrect and improper. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of this court passed in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.481/2023 (Smt. Geeta Devi & Anr. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 01.11.2017.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 while supporting the order passed by Permanent Lok-Adalat submits that learned Permanent Lok-Adalat has taken into consideration all relevant facts while passing the order dated 11.10.2023. He

[2024:RJ-JD:22383]

[CW-1482/2024]

(3 of 4)

further submits that the petitioner State has not even filed its reply to the application filed by the respondent No.1, therefore, the submissions made in the application before the Permanent Lok-Adalat remained un-rebutted. As such, the negligence pleaded in the application preferred by the respondent No.1 should be taken to be an admitted fact in the matter. He, therefore, prays that the order passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalat on 11.10.2023 is perfectly just and proper and the same does not call for any interference by this court.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case including the impugned order passed by the Permanent Lok-Adalat.

¶31

Since, the facts are not disputed, therefore, it can safely be taken into account that the respondent No.1 had undergone an operation for sterilization on 22.12.2020 and after lapse of about two years, she was blessed with third child. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 preferred an application under Section 22B of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 claiming compensation against failure of operation. A bare perusal of the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Permanent LokAdalat shows that the factum of negligence has not been proved before the Permanent Lok-Adalat and straightway, it has been recorded that the respondent No.1 is entitled for a compensation to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-(rupees Six Lakhs only) on account of having given birth to third child after failure of sterilization operation. It was incumbent upon the Permanent Lok-Adalat to have deliberated on the issue of negligence by the doctor who had performed the operation in the present case. Since, there is no

[2024:RJ-JD:22383]

[CW-1482/2024]

(4 of 4)

concrete finding recorded with regard to the negligence on the part of the doctor performing the sterilization operation, learned Permanent Lok-Adalat has committed error while awarding compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- in the present case. Further, the Division Bench of this court in case of Smt. Geeta (supra) has held that no compensation could have been awarded without arriving at a conclusion that there was some negligence on the part of the doctor performing sterilization.

¶36

In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner State is allowed. The order dated 11.10.2023 passed by Permanent Lok-Adalat, Merta District Nagaur in case No.24/2023 is quashed and set aside.

¶37

However, it will be open for the respondent No.1 that if any compensation is payable for failure of the sterilization operation in terms of any Scheme notified by the State Government, the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to make representation before the State Government in this regard. Needless to say that if any representation is made by the respondent No.1 for payment of compensation in terms of the Scheme, if any, in force at the relevant time, the same shall be considered by the State Government expeditiously. If any amount has already been paid to the respondent No.1 by the State Government under any other scheme, the same shall be adjusted while considering the representation of the respondent No.1.

¶38

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶39

27-Anil Singh/-

District Chief Medical Officer v. Sarita Vaishnav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

District Chief Medical Officer v. Sarita Vaishnav

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

Khumani Bai Vs the District Collector

Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sita Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Singh @ Soni @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Heeraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Thori Vs State of Rajasthan