[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
1 WP-17358-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 17358 of 2018
SMT. MANJU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amin Khan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeks following reliefs:-
"7.1 For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or
direction to the Respondents to provide Rs. 2 Lakhs
compensation to the Petitioner to compensate her for grave
violation of her fundamental rights to life, health, dignity,
and equality as well as suffering due to apathy of the
respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 including trauma of being forced
to deliver causing great mental, emotional and physical
trauma to her.
7.2 That after the failure of the sterilization petitioner gave
birth to a child and, petitioner has to bear the whole
responsibility of her health, schooling, marriage, etc. after the
failure of the sterilization now it became the responsibility of
the state to take care of the children."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has undergone sterilization operation on 12.12.2012 yet, she
delivered a baby male child on 21.10.2014 and therefore, in view of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
2 WP-17358-2018
policy of the Central Government namely Manual for Family Planning
Indemnity Scheme, 2013 being implemented by the State of M.P., the
petitioner is entitled for grant of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of
failure of the sterilization operation. He places reliance upon an order dated
02.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.37/2020
wherein, the writ appeal preferred by the State challenging an order passed in
a writ petition granting benefit to the respondent therein by the learned writ
court has been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
issue involved stands covered by the aforesaid judgment dated 2.4.2025
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.37/2020.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State by
referring to the consent letter given by the petitioner prior to her sterilization
operation filed as Annexure R/1 with the return submits that the petitioner
has consented prior to operation that in the event of failure of sterilization
operation, no claim for any compensation before any court would be
maintainable in case, the petitioner fails in getting abortion within a period of
two weeks from conceiving the child after the operation. He also places upon
the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab vs.
Shiv Ram and Ors. (2005) AIR (SCW) 4108 (Annexure R/2) to contend that
merely a woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant
and delivered a child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held
liable to pay compensation to such woman. He further submits that the
policy relied upon by the petitioner and filed along with the list of document
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
3 WP-17358-2018
is of the year 2013 whereas, the petitioner has undergone the sterilization
operation in the year 2012 and delivered a baby in the year 2014 and
therefore, the said policy may have no retrospective applicability.
6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
8. The manual for Family Planning Indemnity Scheme implemented
through NRHM-PIPs by the Government of India through various State
Governments including the State of M.P. has been the subject matter of
consideration by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.37/2020 and
the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.4.2025 has held as
under:-
"13.This is a case where respondent sought compensation
before the writ Court because of failure of sterilization
operation and she succeeded in Writ Court. From perusal of
the scheme of 2013 attached with the reply as Annexure R/1,
it appears that no limitation as such is prescribed in the said
scheme. However, learned counsel for the appellants/State
was right when he refers the scheme in which question of
limitation is discussed in clause 1.2 (8) of the Scheme. The
said clause is reiterated for ready reference as under:-
"Salient Features of the Scheme:-
1. The Family Planning Indemnity Scheme has all India
coverage.
2. All persons undergoing/ undergone sterilization
operation in public health facility or private/ NGO
facilities accredited by SQAC/DQAC for sterilization
services are covered under Section I-A, I-B, I-C and I-D
of the scheme.
3. The Consent Form duly filled in by the beneficiary at
the time of enrolling himself/ herself for sterilization
operation duly countersigned at the medical facility
shall be a proof of coverage under the scheme
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
4 WP-17358-2018
(Annexure 2).
4. The medical records and checklist for female/ male
sterilization should also be duly filled in by the Doctors/
Health Facilities (Annexure 3).
5. All the doctors/ health facilities in public sector and
private/ NGO facilities empanelled/ accredited with
SQAC/ DQACs conducting such operations are covered
under Section-II of the scheme. There is a stipulated
criterion for empanelment of doctors/ accreditations of
health facilities for sterilization which can be referred
from "Standard and Quality Assurance in sterilization
services, Nov 2014".
6. All claims arising under Section 1 and Section 11
shall be admissible from 1st April 2013, under the
scheme.
7. Claims arising out of cases of sterilization operations
which were detected and reported after 1st April 2013,
will come under the purview of State Programme
implementation plans (PIPs). Claims arising out of
cases of sterilization operations detected and reported
before 1st April, 2013, will not come under the purview
of State Programme Implementation Plans (PIPs). Such
claims would be covered and processed as per the
respective guidelines of expired policies from 29th
November 2005 to 31st March, 2013 and the convener
of DISC (CMO or Equivalent) designated for this
purpose at district level would be responsible for
unpaid/ time barred claims above. No provision will be
made for unpaid claims in the State PIPs.
8. The Claims will fall within the "Family Planning
Indemnity Scheme" only if the beneficiary files the
claim with the DISC within 90 days from the
occurrence of the event of death/ failure/ complication."
14. From perusal of sub clause 8 of Clause 1.2, it appears
that limitation of 90 days has been prescribed for filing the
claim with the DISC (District Indemnity Sub Committee) to
the person concerned, however, clause as attached indicates
that delay in filing the claim can be condoned. It nowhere
refers the consequence of filing any application for
compensation with delay. Since it is a beneficial regulations/
guidelines meant to the welfare of those families who
support the cause of birth control by undergoing sterilization
operation, therefore, this is meant to address the predicament
of those families, who suffer at the hands of State Machinery/
Hospitals.
15. Perusal of the Policy further reveals that three
contingencies namely Death, Failure and Complication (total
three in number) are given and within 90 days from any of
these contingencies, claim is required to be filed. Except
death, other contingencies cannot be computed in exact
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
5 WP-17358-2018
manner because when operation would fail is un-
ascertainable and when complication would ensue is also
difficult to determine, therefore, loosely worded limitation
period deserves to be construed in favour of the person for
whom the benefit is launched.
16. One more aspect which also deserves consideration is the
fact that if respondent/ claimant would have been in
Government Service and already having two children and if
conceive again because of failure of sterilization program
then she might get reprimanded or removed from her service
as per the policy of the State where service conditions can be
compromised if employee is blessed with Third Child after
cut off date. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the learned Writ Court did not err in passing the
impugned order on the basis of catena of decisions as
discussed and referred above in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
17. Looking to the overall Intention and Objectives of the
scheme and different pronouncements of the Apex Court as
well as this Court from time to time, it appears that benefit
accrued to the respondent (petitioner in Writ Petition) may
not be sacrificed at the altar of delay only.
18. The appeal bereft of merit is hereby dismissed."
9. It would thus be seen that the applicability of the said policy and
the issue of grant of compensation of Rs.30,000/- on account of failure of
sterilization operation in the State of M.P. has already been considered by
the Division Bench of this Court. In view whereof, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that the petitioner herein shall also be entitled for grant of
benefit in terms of the aforesaid policy. Needless to mention here that the
policy of the year 2013 is a revised policy currently prevalent and even as per
the policy prevalent in the year 2012, the quantum of compensation for
failure of sterilization operation was Rs.30,000/- only and therefore, the
objection as regards retrospective applicability of the said policy raised by
the learned State counsel being of no consequence stands rejected.
10. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of
compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 90 days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:9557
6 WP-17358-2018
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral
request for grant of interest on the aforesaid amount.
12. Insofar as the relief of grant of interest is concerned, in the
absence of any enabling clause in the policy for the grant of interest, this
Court does not deem it appropriate to grant any interest to the petitioner. The
prayer for grant of interest therefore stands rejected. However, it is directed
that in case the compensation, as directed in the instant order, is not paid
within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of
this order passed today, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per
annum with effect from the date of communication of this order till the date
of actual payment.
13. With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Van
