H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Kumar Pal and his wife Smt.Jagwati, both residents of village Darana, Post Office Hassanpur, District Faridabad had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Medical Officer/Incharge, Civil Dispensary, Hodal, Faridabad, Secretary/Ministry of Health, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, Director, Health Services, Haryana, Chandigarh, Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon, District Faridabad and State of Haryana through Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, claiming damages by way of compensation.

2. Shortly put, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife were having two daughters and a son; thereafter they did not desire to have any further child, as such plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati underwent tubectomy operation from Civil Dispensary, Hodal on 1.6.1990; the operation was performed by the Medical Officer/Incharge of Civil Dispensary in question and thereafter, he had issued a certificate to the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati would not conceive further and would not give birth to any child, however, subsequently plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati conceived and gave birth to a female child, named, Sunita at B.K. Hospital, Faridabad on 15.6.1992.

According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati had conceived on account of negligent and careless act done by the Medical Officer/Incharge, Civil Dispensary, Hodal, who had performed family planning operation upon plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati. The plaintiffs claimed damages to the tune of Rs.4 lakhs stating that they are entitled to recover the same from the defendants.

3. On being given notice, the defendants appeared and filed a joint written statement contesting the suit inter alia raising various preliminary objections contending that no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs to bring the suit; the suit was not maintainable; the plaintiffs were estopped by their own act and conduct from filing the suit etc. On merits, it was contended that it was no where mentioned in the certificate that plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati would not conceive in future and no assurance had been given by the operating surgeon to the plaintiffs in that regard; the operation had been successfully carried out and if plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati conceived again and gave birth to fourth child, that was not on account of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the operating surgeon; since family welfare programme is a 100% voluntary programme, plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati had volunteered herself for undergoing tubectomy operation. Refuting the remaining assertions, defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The plaintiffs had filed replication to the written statement controverting the allegations in the written statement whereas reiterating the averments in the plaint.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for recovery of Rs.4,00,000/- by way of damages/compensation as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff has not attached permission letter of the competent authority? OPD.

4. Whether this case has already been rejected by the Haryana Govt. vide letter No.1/114/93-1 HB-II dt.30.11.93? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.

7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by her own acts and conduct? OPD.

8. Relief.

6. Both the parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead their evidence in support of their respective claims.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Palwal after giving issue-wise findings dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 1.10.2002.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Faridabad,