Prl. Secy. M H Dept. Hyd 2 Others vs Punnam Somalakshmi, Warangal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4655 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                  AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

               W.A.Nos.1002 and 1062 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:      (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common order.

     The facts of W.A.No.1002 of 2008 are reproduced as

under:-

     The appellants before this Court, the State Government

and its functionaries, have filed this writ appeal being

aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2007 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4781 of 2007, by which the

learned Single Judge has granted compensation to the tune of

Rs.60,000/- to respondent No.1/writ petitioner No.1 and

Rs.40,000/- to respondent No.2/writ petitioner No.2.

The facts of the case reveal that respondent No.1, who

was writ petitioner No.1, preferred the writ petition stating

that she was working as a Agricultural Labourer, she was

blessed with two male children and she has undergone

tubectomy operation at Government Hospital, Torrur, on

11.02.2002. It was further stated that she became pregnant

and ultimately, gave birth to a child, writ petitioner No.2, on

08.01.2005 and therefore, as there was failure in respect of

tubectomy operation, she is entitled for compensation to the

tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and her child, writ petitioner No.2, is

entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-. The

learned Single Judge, after placing reliance upon the

judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Status of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram and others1, has held

that the Doctor, who performed the operation of sterilization,

cannot be held liable to pay compensation and failure of

operation is not a rare phenomenon. In spite of the aforesaid,

the learned Single Judge has granted compensation to the

tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the aforesaid case is on record.

In the considered opinion of this Court, in the absence

of pleadings to the effect that the Doctors, who performed the

operation, were negligent or were responsible for the failure of

the operation, the compensation could not have been granted

in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Whether

there was negligence on the part of the Doctors or not could

have been certainly proved in Civil Suit, where the parties

would have been at a liberty to adduce the evidence.

However, in the present cases, in absence of there being any

cogent material that the Doctors were negligent in carrying

out the tubectomy operation, the learned Single Judge, only

after taking sympathetic view of the matter, has granted

compensation. In the considered opinion of this Court, for

grant of compensation also, there should be compelling and

(2005) 7 SCC 1

cogent reasons and it cannot be granted, especially when

there is no negligence on the part of the Doctors.

Resultantly, the writ appeals are allowed and the

impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge are

quashed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J 29.12.2021 JSU