Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Santosh Tak vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13681/2018
1. Santosh Tak W/o Shri Devender Tak, Aged About 33
Years, Ukaliya, Badi Sadadi, District Chittorgarh
(Rajasthan)
2. Pratapi W/o Shri Modiram Bhil, Aged About 34 Years,
Umarpura, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
3. Kalli @kali Bai W/o Shri Devi Lal Bhil, Aged About 31
Years, Village Singhadiya, At Present Ambaburi District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
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, Chittorgarh District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
3. Govt. Community Health Centre, Badi Sadari, Chittorgarh
District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) Through Its Head.
4. Govt. Community Health Centre, Bengue, Chittorgarh
District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) Through Its Head.
5. Govt. Community Health Centre, Rawarbhata, Chittorgarh
District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan) Through Its Head.
6. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through
Chairperson, District Collector, District Chittorgarh
(Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/12/2021
The defects pointed out by the office are overruled.
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 08:50:58 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-13681/2018]
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
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
(Downloaded on 17/12/2021 at 08:50:58 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-13681/2018]
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/Nirmala
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
