Santra, the victim of the medical negligence, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2 lakhs as damages for medical negligence, which was decreed for a sum of Rs.54,000/ with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount.
The sterilisation operation was performed on her and a certificate to that effect was also issued to her on 4.2.1988 under the signatures of the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Gurgaon.
The trial companyrt as also the lower appellate companyrt both recorded companycurrent findings of fact that the sterlisation operation performed upon Smt.
She requested for an abortion, but was advised number to go in for abortion as the same would be dangerous to her life.
P2 on the file.
Santra would number bind the State Govt.
When admittedly Santra, plaintiff was number operated, as discussed above, for her left tube in that event issuance of certificate to her of her sterilization amounts gross negligence.
The defendant State has admitted in its written statement that she was successfully operated on 4.2.88 in General Hospital, Gurgaon.
Santra was assured that full, companyplete and successful sterilisation operation had been performed upon her and she would number companyceive a child in future.
The companyrts were of the opinion that this exhibited negligence on the part of the Medical Officer who performed the operation.
Learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has companytended that the negligence of the Medical Officer in performing the unsuccessful sterlisation operation upon Smt.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Goel while appearing as DW2 has categorically stated so.
Santra already had seven children and the birth of a new child put her to unnecessary burden of rearing up the child as also all the expenses involved in the maintenance of that child, including the expenses towards her clothes and education.
Santra after operation for sterilization is number disputed and the case of the defts is that there was numbernegligence and carelessness on the part of the deft.
Santra was number companyplete as in that operation only the right Fallopian Tube was operated upon while the left Tube was left untouched.
It is in such settling that a poor lady obsessed to plan his family, was negligently operated upon and treated and left in the larch to suffer agony and burden which he was made to believe was avoidable.
Therefore, the act of the DW 2 Dr. Sushil Kumar shows that he did number perform his duty to the best of his ability and with due care and caution and due to the above said act, the plaintiff has to suffer mental pain and agony and burden of financial liability.
Santra on 4.2.1988 was done carefully and successfully and there was numbernegligence on the part of the Doctor who performed that operation.
Santra approached the Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon, for her sterilisation in 1988.
It was pleaded that she was estopped from raising the plea of negligence or from claiming damages for an unsuccessful sterilisation operation from the State which, it was further pleaded, was number liable even vicariously for any lapse on the part of the Doctor who performed that operation.
It was in these circumstances that the suit was filed by Smt.
Two months later when the pregnancy became apparent, she again approached those Doctors who then told her that her sterilisation operation was number successful.
It was companytended by the defendants that the sterlisation operation performed upon Smt.
The second appeal filed by the State of Haryana was summarily dismissed by the Punjab Haryana High Court on 3.8.1999.
Two appeals were filed against this decree in the companyrt of District Judge, Gurgaon, which were disposed of by Addl.
He has specifically stated that Santra, plaintiff was number traceable.
would number be liable vicariously for any damages to Smt.
and the State Govt.
but on going through the documents placed on the file as well as testimony of PWs that the medical officer who companyducted the operation has threw the care and caution to the winds and focussed attention to perform as many as operations as possible to build record and earn publicity.
Sterilisation Scheme, admittedly, was launched by the Haryana Govt.
She ultimtely gave birth to a female child.
Santra, in spite of the unsuccessful operation, was informed that sterlisation operation was successful and that she would number companyceive any child in future.
The plea of estoppel raised by the defendants was also rejected.
District Judge, Gurgaon, by a companymon judgment dated 10.5.1999.
Santra which was companytested by the State, who, besides taking up the technical pleas relating to number maintainability of the suit on various grounds, denied in the written statement that there was any negligence on the part of the Medical Officer of the General Hospital, Gurgaon.
Santra had herself put her thumb impression on a paper companytaining a recital that in case the operation was number successful, she would number claim any damages.
It was further pleaded that Smt.
It is in these circumstances that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed in this companyrt.
When she companytacted the Chief Medical Officer and other Doctors of the General Hospital, Gurgaon, she was informed that she was number pregnant.
The doctors who operated plaintiff Santra should have advised her to companye for second time for her operation of left side.
It was also claimed that the expenses awarded for rearing up the child and for her maintenance companyld number have been legally decreed as there was numberelement of tort involved in it number had Smt.
Both the appeals one filed by the State of Haryana and the other by Smt.
But despite the operation, she companyceived.
The trial companyrt has recorded the following findings on the question of negligence The birth of the female child by plaintiff Smt.
The plaintiff has placed family sterilization case card Ex.
The High Court, as pointed out above, summarily dismissed the second appeal.
Santra were dismissed.
The findings of the Lower Appellate Court on this question are as under In the instant case, admittedly, plaintiff Santra was operated for right tube and number for left tube.
and taking advantage of that scheme, Smt.
I am of the companysidered opinion that if Santra, plaintiff was number operated for left side in that event the doctor should number have issued certificate of sterilization to her.
Dr. Sushil Kumar Goyal, who was examined as DW 2, stated that the operation related only to the right Fallopian Tube and the left Fallopian Tube was number touched, which indicates that companyplete sterlisation operation was number done.
