PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. Appellants by this appeal have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2002 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No.6B/02 whereby civil suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents herein for damages of Rs.1,39,000/-has been decreed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant No.1 underwent laproscopic sterilization operation in a camp organized by appellants on 17.9.1998. Despite undergoing sterilization operation plaintiff No.1/respondent No.1 herein conceived and gave birth to a female child on 23.8.1999 i.e. plaintiff No.3. Cause of action for filing of suit has been shown that plaintiff No.2, husband of plaintiff No.1, is working as Assistant Teacher and getting monthly salary of Rs.6550/- and on account of negligence of the doctor, who did not carry out sterilization operation with due care and caution, unwanted girl child born to plaintiff No.1 due to which plaintiff No.2 had to bear the financial burden of bringing up an unwanted child and therefore appellant State being employer is also vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctor engaged by it. The plaintiffs have claimed amount towards labour pain & suffering; medical treatment; mental pain & agony, maintenance and marriage expenses of plaintiff No.3.

3. Appellant-State herein filed written statement and denied all the allegations levelled against them in the plaint. It has been pleaded that Dr. D.K. Turre, who conducted sterilization operation, was a qualified surgeon having experience of 10 years and he was competent to carry out woman sterilization operation. Plaintiff No.1 had given her consent at the time of her operation and she was clearly told that sterilization operation is not 100% guarantee for avoiding pregnancy. No negligence was committed by the doctors who organized camp and the doctor who operated plaintiff No.1. It has further been pleaded that if for any reason plaintiff No.1 became pregnant, she could have consulted the doctor immediately and asked for termination of her pregnancy by a competent doctor, but she maintained complete silence and only after giving birth to a female child she raised the issue of failure of sterilization operation.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of respective parties framed four issues for consideration and after providing opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence to respective parties, decided all the four issues in favour of plaintiffs/respondents herein and against defendants/appellants herein. Learned trial Court arrived at a finding that defendants/appellants herein are responsible for unsuccessful laproscopic sterilization operation of plaintiff No.1 and therefore they are liable to pay amount of damages to the plaintiffs and accordingly decreed suit for damages of Rs.1,39,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for appellants would argue that there has been no negligence on the part of doctors in organizing sterilization operation camp and conducting sterilization operation of plaintiff No.1. There are chances of failure in sterilization operation and in case, the operation has failed, the same cannot be held as negligence on the part of treating doctor. He further argues that even the plaintiffs failed to bring on record any material indicating that there was any sort of negligence on the part of doctor who conducted sterilization operation or he did not exercise reasonable skill and care while performing such operation. He further submits that on the said date not only plaintiff No.1 but many other women, who submitted themselves for undergoing sterilization operation, were operated but except plaintiff No.1 none had made any complaint whatsoever. He further argued that plaintiff No.1 herself visited the camp, she was informed in advance that there may be chance of failure of sterilization operation as such operations are not 100% successful and after understanding all this, plaintiff No.1 had signed the