( 1 ) THIS first appeal under section 96 of the code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by unsuccessful plaintiff against the judgment passed by district Judge, Seoni in C. S. No. 9-A of 1998 on 14. 12. 2000, whereby her claim for damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of failure of sterilisation operation was dismissed.

( 2 ) FACTS, not in dispute, are mentioned hereinbelow: the appellant had undergone sterilisation operation at Khwasa Camp, Seoni on 17. 11. 1994. The said operation was performed by Dr. Sunanda Choudhary, the respondent No. 1, who was then serving as specialist in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Civil Hospital at Seoni. She was under the control and supervision of respondent nos. 2 to 4.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the appellant, she belongs to poor strata of society and was already having four children. Since her husband was drawing a meagre salary by doing labour work, both of them thought it fit that appellant should undergo sterilisation operation so as to restrict their family to the number which already existed. The precautions which were disclosed to her by respondent No. 1 at the time of operation were fully and strictly adhered to. Even after the sterilisation operation, when her menstrual cycle stopped, she went to a private doctor, who after examination raised a doubt that she had become pregnant. She, therefore, came to Seoni to meet respondent No. 1 to ascertain if this was true. Initially, respondent No. 1 did not examine her on the ground that she was extremely busy on the said day. She thereafter went to meet her again after a month. She was examined by respondent No. 1 and it was confirmed that she had become pregnant. No operation for termination of pregnancy could be performed on her at that time, as her pregnancy had reached at an advanced stage and any such operation could have proved fatal to her. Under these facts and circumstances she had no choice, but to wait for her delivery and ultimately, she gave birth to a female child. She was already under considerable monetary burden and it was difficult for her to bring her up and to provide her with the basic and necessary amenities that a normal child should be given. On these pleadings, asserting that obviously the operation had been unsuccessful, she filed the suit for damages against the respondents claiming a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the same.

( 4 ) ON summons being issued to the respondents, respondent No. 1, the doctor who had performed the operation on the appellant, filed her own written statement denying the plaint averments. She admitted that operation of tubectomy was performed on the appellant at Khwasa Camp on 17. 11. 1994, but the same operation according to her was successful and ordinarily there should not have been any chances of her developing pregnancy. She has also taken the plea that on account of an undertaking given by the appellant before the operation that in case of failure of operation for any reason whatsoever, she would not be entitled to claim any damages nor the respondents would be liable to pay the same. She, therefore, contended that under the doctrine of estoppel, the appellant was estopped from claiming any damages from respondents. The said undertaking bears her signature. Thus, the defence was taken that in the light of the said undertaking appellant would not be justified nor legally entitled to claim any damages. It was further averred that suit has been filed only with an intention to harass, humiliate and malign her. Thus, the same deserves to be dismissed.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 to 4 filed their own separate written statements denying the plaint allegations in toto. According to them, only on consent being given by the appellant, sterilisation operation was performed on her by the respondent No. 1, lady doctor, who had acquired sufficient amount of expertise in such operations and generally there were no chances of failure