Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Geeta Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1677) on 10 January, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:1677]
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13654/2024
Geeta Meena W/o Keshuram Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Aadavela, Village Panchayat Khuntgarh, Tehsil And
District Pratapgarh (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, Pratapgarh, District
Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).
3. Primary Health Centre Devgarh, District Pratapgarh
through its Head.
4. District Quality Assurance Committee, Through
Chairperson, District Collector, District Pratapgarh
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. OP Kumawat
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
10/01/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks 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.
3. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:1677] (2 of 2) [CW-13654/2024]
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
underwent 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."
4. 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 within a
period of two months from the receipt thereof. If any of the
petitioner's grievance still survive after disposal of the
representation, she shall be at liberty to take recourse of the
appropriate legal remedy for the redressal thereof.
5. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Stay petition
and all other pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of
accordingly.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
19-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
