The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the State Government to pay compensation for medical malpractice and negligence in conducting medical procedures under the Family Planning Programme.

JUDGMENT :

VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants 2 and 3 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.06.2005, in O.S. No. 16 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit.

2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for recovery of Rs.4,83,500/-, with interest, towards compensation.

3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 16 of 2003, are as under:

(i) The plaintiff is the resident of Tarigopula village, living by coolie work. She was married to one Nadipi Siddaiah and given birth to three children out of wedlock. She is very much consciousness about the society as the present living conditions, she yielded to the advertisements of the third defendant make about the Family Planning Operations and decided herself to went to the Family Planning Operation, she approached first defendant on 19.01.1998 at Government Hospital, Nandikotkur, as per the advice of the first defendant, she admitted in the hospital on 20.01.1998. First defendant conducted Tubectomy Operation on 21.01.1998 and a certificate has been issued to that effect.

(ii) In the month of February, 2001, the plaintiff feeling unwell and consulted local doctor and the said doctor declared that the plaintiff is fourth month pregnant and also advised that at that stage she could not terminate the pregnancy. On the advice of medical experts, as it is advanced stage and it will endanger to her life, she gave birth to fourth female child on 02.07.2001.

(iii) On 29.07.2001, the plaintiff underwent Laproscopic operation at Government Hospital, Nandikotkur, operated by Dr.N.Radha Krishna Reddy, the doctor, who conducted the second operation on 29.07.2001 opined that the Tubectomy operation conducted by the first defendant on 21.01.1998 was failed. Due to the negligent attitude of the first defendant in performing the Tubectomy Operation, it was failed subsequently. If the first defendant had taken the prudent care, the Tubectomy operation might not have failed. It is very difficult to brought up that child in the present situation, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,83,500/-.

5. The first defendant filed a written statement. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows:

(i) There is no negligence on the part of surgeon. No surgeon can prevent such recanalization tubes as it is a natural thing and it cannot be attributed to the negligence. If the Recanalization takes place in any Tubectomy case, one can only say that the patient is unfortunate. If going by statistics it could be said the failure rate of the Tubectomy operations is nearly 4 to 6 in 1000 cases and it could be said this is an un-expected complication in all Tubectomy Sterilization operation and it is not due to any negligence on the part of this defendant.

(ii) Every Surgeon after operation and at the time of discharge, they used to advice the patient, if monthly date is missed, they would come and report to doctor, the plaintiff did not report to her about failure of operation. The plaintiff could have come at earliest stage and would have easily terminate the pregnancy.

The second defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended that the suit is bad for non-issuance of Section 80 notice and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. Third defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of second defendant.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(i) Whether there is no negligence on the part of first defendant?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount?

(iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial in the tr