Allahabad High Court
Smt. Suresma vs State Of U.P. Thru Principal ... on 20 August, 2014
Bench: Rajiv Sharma, Mahendra Dayal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?
Court No. - 24
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4612 of 2003
Petitioner :- Smt. Suresma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary And 4 Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Basant Lal,Dileep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J.
Hon'ble Mahendra Dayal,J.
Case called out. None responds for the petitioner to press this petition. The writ petition is quite old and pertains to the year 2003. However we have heard learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Factual matrix of the present case are that the petitioner Smt. Suresma w/o Sri Mishri Lal had got four issues from the wedlock, so they took a decision that they do not want any further issue taking into consideration the economic condition of the family. Accordingly, the couple decided to go for Tubectomy operation. Accordingly, the same was performed on 11.5.2002 District Mahila Hospital, Sitapur under the supervision of Primary Health Officer/opposite party No.5. Despite this, after expiry of nearly four months, the petitioner again became pregnant and gave birth to a male child, namely Ankur on 18.5.2003.
In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that due to medical negligence on the part of the Doctors of District Mahila Hospital, Sitapur, an unwanted male child was born on 18.5.2003. As the petitioner has no other source to maintain their unwanted children, a compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- has been claimed for upbringing their unwanted children, who was born only due to sheer negligence on the part of Doctors.
In the case of State of Haryana and others versus Smt. Santa [2000 (5) SCC 182], the Apex Court held that the respondent was a poor lady who already had seven children. She was already under considerable monetary burden. The unwanted child (girl) born to her has created additional burden for her on account of the negligence of the doctor who performed sterilization operation upon her and, therefore, she is clearly entitled to claim full damages from the State Govt. to enable her to bring up the child at least till she attains puberty.
The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of above, the petitioner is directed to approach the authority concerned by preferring a representation espousing her grievance, which has been raised in the instant writ petition, who shall decide the same, in light of the aforesaid judgment, by a speaking and reasoned order. Let the entire exercise be done within a maximum period of three months from today.
The writ petition stands disposed of finally in above terms.
Order Date :- 20.8.2014
Muk
