The main legal point established in the judgment is that compensation for failed sterilization operations can only be claimed if medical negligence is proved, and that the decision to continue a pregnancy after a sterilization operation affects the claim for damages.

ORDER

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

CWP No. 11943/2019 :

'by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2019 (Annex-3) passed by the learned Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh along with other members in case no.147/2006 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners and consequence thereof the application (Annex-1) filed by the respondent no.1 be rejected qua the petitioners.'

CWP No.12051/2019:

'by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the present petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 28.05.2019 (Annex-4) passed by the learned Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat, Hanumangarh along with other members in case no.39/2010 be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners and consequence thereof the application (Annex-1) filed by the respondent no.2 be rejected qua the petitioners.'

CWP No.18940/2019:

'By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 (Annex-3) passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Bikaner, in Case No.181/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside.'

3. The common controversy involved in all the present petitions is whether the pregnancy of the petitioner after the sterilization operation would entitle the parents for compensation from the State.

4. For the sake of brevity, the present adjudication is being made while treating SBCWP No.11943/2019 as a lead case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 is in fact only a General Physician with an MBBS Degree and not a surgeon, and therefore could not and did not conduct operation of the respondent no.1, neither did he promise the payment of the sum of money of Rs.20,000/- under the relevant government scheme to the respondent no.1, and therefore, should not have been prosecuted for medical

negligence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was not party to the said application, and therefore, could not file a reply before the learned P.L.A., and was thus, incorrectly directed to pay the said sum of money to the respondent no.1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submissions, placed reliance upon the following judgments:

7.1 State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Smt. Geeta Devi and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 915/2006, decided on 11.01.2013), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court observed as under:

'11. In view of the position of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivram's case (supra) which squarely applies on the facts of the present case, in considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is not sustainable in eyes of law.

12. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, it is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 22.7.05 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Churu in Permanent Lok Adalat Case No. 8/04 is quashed and set aside. However, if any compensation is payable for failure of the sterilization operation in terms of any Scheme notified by the State Government, the respondent no. 1 shall be at liberty to make representation before the State Government in this regard. Needless to say that if any representation is made by the respondent no.1 for payment of compensation in terms of the Scheme, if any, in force of at the relevant time, the same shall be considered by the State Government expeditiously. No order as to costs.'

7.2. Smt. Geeta Devi and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 581/2013, decided on 01.11.2017), wherein a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court held as under:

'No compensation could have been awarded without arriving at a conclusion that there was some negligence on part of the doctor performing sterilization