The burden lies on the defendants to prove that there was no negligence in cases of failed sterilization operation. The court also emphasized the need for the State Government to devise provisions for a welfare fund or insurance scheme to provide coverage for such claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set side the judgment and decree, dated 08.09.2016 made in A.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2005 made in O.S.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set side the judgment and decree, dated 08.09.2016 made in A.S.No.12 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 13.10.2005 made in O.S.No.32 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to set side the judgment and decree, dated 08.09.2016 made in A.S.No.13 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.12.2005 made in O.S.No.18 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur.)

1. A common substantial question of law is raised in all the above second appeals and therefore, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment, as the facts and issues involved in these Second Appeals are also one and the same.

2. Heard Mr.P.Harish, learned Government Advocate (Civil side) appearing for the appellants and Mr.T.Gobinath, learned Counsel for the respondent in all these appeals.

3. The defendants in the suits are the appellants in the above second appeals. The respondent in S.A.No.139 of 2017 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 2004 on the file Subordinate Court, Thiruvarur. The respondent in S.A.No.140 of 2017 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2004 and the respondent in S.A.No.141 of 2017 is the plaintiff in O.S.No.70 of 2004. All the three suits were filed by the plaintiffs as against the appellants herein claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, as damages/compensation for medical negligence.

4. It is the common case of the plaintiffs that they begotten two or three children and thereafter, they underwent sterilization operation (Tubectomy) to avoid further pregnancy due to their family circumstances. All the plaintiffs were admitted at Mannargudi Government Hospital. The sterilization operation (Tubectomy) was done in the case of the respondent in S.A.No.139 of 2017 on 08.07.1997. Similarly, the sterilization operation (Tubectomy) was done in the case of the respondent in S.A.No.140 of 2017 on 19.12.1997. In the case of the respondent in S.A.No.141 of 2017, she underwent sterilization operation (Tubectomy) on 20.01.2000. However, to their dismay, the plaintiffs got pregnant subsequently within one year and gave birth to a female child.

5. From the facts, it is seen that the respondent in S.A.No.139 of 2017 gave birth to a female child on 05.12.1999. In the case of the respondent in S.A.No.140 of 2017, she gave birth to a female child on 23.07.2001 and in the case of the respondent in S.A.No.141 of 2017, she gave birth to a female child on 15.02.2003. Therefore, it is the common case of the plaintiffs/respondents in each second appeal that they have already two or three children and that they were living in a poor financial condition. Their decision to go for sterilization operation (Tubectomy) was on account of their financial constraints. It is their common case that the pregnancy was due to medical negligence and therefore, each one claimed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as damages/compensation. It is pertinent to mention that the surgery was performed by a Lady Doctor, who is the the fourth defendant in all the three suits.

6. The appellants/defendants in their written statement filed before the Trial Court had stated that the plaintiffs in the respective suits had not followed the advise given by the fourth defendant and that the pregnancy was not due to surgical failure or negligence or carelessness on the part of the fourth defendant. It is also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs have not taken care to follow the medic