Anita vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18716 Raj

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18524/2019

Anita W/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No.
11, Village Pilibanga Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
                                                                           ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary (Health
          And Family Welfare), Department Of Health And Family
          Welfare,     Government            Of      Rajasthan,            Government
          Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2.        Chief Medical And Health Officer, Hanumangarh, District
          Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
3.        Govt.    Community         Health       Centre,          Pilibanga,    District
          Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) Through Its Head.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. O.P. Kumawat



        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                       Order

09/12/2021

        Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

        By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the

State     Government      to    compensate           her      for     an     amount    of

Rs.30,000/- under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme for

failure of her sterilization.

        The case of the petitioner is that respondents have failed to

fully implement the schemes for safe sterilization and the failure

of   sterilization,   conducted         upon       her     has       jeopardized      the

petitioner's health and violated her fundamental rights. Relying on

the Single Bench Judgment in the case of Naval Vs. Union of India


                       (Downloaded on 13/12/2021 at 08:43:09 PM)
                                                                              (2 of 2)                       [CW-18524/2019]



                                   reported in 2009(1) RLW 865 (Raj.), learned counsel for the

                                   petitioner submits that case of the petitioner may be disposed of

                                   in the light of the directions as issued in Naval's case (supra),

                                   wherein following directions were given:-


                                        "11. Considering the fact that the petitioner No.2 under went
                                        sterilisation operation in 2001, she conceived and delivered a child
                                        in 2002, the negligence on the part of the Doctor is prima facie
                                        made out. Since sterilisation operation is done in order to prevent
                                        pregnancy, since in the present case, petitioner No.2 became
                                        pregnant despite the sterilisation operation, the doctrine of res ipsa
                                        loquitur (a thing speaks for itself) can certainly be invoked.
                                        Therefore, this Court deems it proper to direct the petitioners to file
                                        representation    before   the    appropriate     authority   for    seeking
                                        compensation from the Central Government. The respondents are
                                        directed to consider the petitioners case sympathetically in the light
                                        of circular July 06, 2006 and to pass the necessary orders within a
                                        period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of
                                        this judgment."

                                        In view of the above submissions, the petitioner is given

                                   liberty to submit a fresh representation to the competent authority

                                   with a copy of this order. Upon receiving such representation, the

                                   competent authority shall objectively consider and decide the

                                   same by a reasoned order while keeping into consideration the

                                   judgment of Naval's case (supra) within a period of two months

                                   from the receipt thereof. If any of the petitioner's grievances still

                                   survive after disposal of the representation, she shall be at liberty

                                   to take recourse of the appropriate legal remedy for the redressal

                                   thereof.

                                        The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.


                                                                    (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

17-Zeeshan

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)