Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 1068
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Before Mr. Justice N.K. Mody
RADHESHYAM
Versus
STATE OF M P
Decided On : Oct 23,2008
KU.VANDANA KASAREKAR, M.A.KHAN, N.P.Pandey, REKHA SHRIVASTAVA, S.D.BOHRA, SUMIT SAMVATSAR, V.P.SARAF,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the State and the claimants for compensation in cases of medical negligence related to failed Tubectomy Operations, as well as the interpretation of the limitation period for filing compensation claims under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1963.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Tubectomy Operation - [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VARIOUS CLAIMANTS] - [Article 72 of Limitation Act 1963, Article 113 of Limitation Act 1963, Consumer Protection Act, Medical Jurisprudence, Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, State of Haryana Vs. Raj Rani, Archana Paul Vs. State of Tripura, Shiv Kali Bai Vs. Dr. Sunanda Choudhary, State of Haryana Vs. Santra] - This judgment involves multiple appeals related to claims for compensation due to failure of Tubectomy Operation. The court analyzed various legal provisions, including the Limitation Act 1963, Consumer Protection Act, and principles of Medical Jurisprudence, to determine the liability of the State and the claimants for compensation. The court considered precedents such as Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, State of Haryana Vs. Raj Rani, and others to establish the legal framework for determining medical negligence and vicarious liability in cases of failed sterilization operations.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved claims for compensation due to failure of Tubectomy Operation, resulting in unwanted pregnancies or death of the women who underwent the operation. The State and the claimants filed appeals dissatisfied with the lower court's decisions on the compensation amounts and liability for medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the circumstances of each case and the legal principles related to medical negligence, vicarious liability, and the limitation period for filing compensation claims. The court found that the State could be held liable for compensation in cases of medical negligence, but the claimants were not entitled to compensation for maintenance and upbringing of unwanted children. The court also modified the compensation amounts awarded by the lower court in some cases.
Issues: The key issues involved determining the liability of the State and the claimants for compensation due to medical negligence in failed Tubectomy Operations, as well as the applicability of the limitation period for filing compensation claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the State could be held liable for compensation in cases of medical negligence related to failed sterilization operations. It also clarified that claimants were not entitled to compensation for maintenance and upbringing of unwanted children. The court further interpreted the limitation period for filing compensation claims under the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1963.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part, modifying the compensation amounts awarded by the lower court and granting ex-gratia amounts to the claimants. The court also directed the payment of interest on the awarded amounts and disposed of all the appeals without any order as to costs.
( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of FA. Nos. 437/97, 187/04, 210/07 and 458/07 and FA. Nos. 205/02, 227/03, 416/04, 352/05, 684/05, 146/06, 210/06 and 489/06 as in all the aforesaid appeals compensation has been claimed on, account of failure of Tubectomy Operation either on account of death of the woman, who was operated or the operated women has given birth after the operation. Thus, in all the suits compensation has been claimed on account of medical negligency. Since a common question of law is involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by one judgment. However in all the suits, the claimants are different and the judgment has also been passed by different-different courts. FA. Nos. 437/97, 187/04, 685/06, 210/07, 458/07 are filed by the appellants / claimants by dis-satisfying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below whereby either the suit filed by the appellant for compensation has been dismissed or amount awarded is inadequate. While FA. Nos. 205/02, 227/03, 416/04, 352/05, 684/05, 146/06, 210/06 and 489/06 are being filed by the State by dissatisfying the decree passed by the learned Court below whereby compensation has been awarded on account of medical negligency. FA. Nos. 227/03 and 187/04 are being filed by both the parties by dissatisfying the judgment and decree dated 16/01/03 passed in Civil Suit No. 9-B/02.
( 2. ) FULL and complete particulars of all the cases are shown in the statement mentioned hereinbelow:-
( 3. ) FACTS of each case are as under:-
1. FA. No. 352/05, (State Vs. Suarambai):-In this suit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-was claimed, alleging that saurambai is Harijan and is below poverty line. At the relevant time, she was having three children, therefore, she got herself operated for family planning on 18/02/97, at B. R. M. Hospital, Ujjain. but delivered a baby Rani @ Madhu, who is respondent No. 2 on 06/03/2000 because of failure of operation. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents for enhancement of amount of compensation for which neither Court fee has been paid nor any application is filed to allow the respondents to prosecute the cross-objections as indigent person.
2. FA. No. 416/04. (State Vs. Chotesingh):-In this case suit was filed by Smt. Chandrawati, wife of chotesingh in her lifetime, alleging that she was operated on 12/ 12/86 at Government Hospital, Malharganj, Indore. She was hospitalized up to 20/12/86. Penicillin Injection was given to Smt. Chandrawati, without any clinical examination, and because of injection her body below the waist become lifeless. It was alleged that before injecting, it was the duty of the doctors to investigate, whether this type of injection could be applied or not. It was alleged that she was shifted to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. In the suit a sum of rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed. During pendency of the suit Smt. Chandrawati, aged 35 years died on 28/09/87. Suit was continued by her legal representatives. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.
3. FA. No. 489/06. (State Vs. Ku. Shanti):-The suit was filed for Rs.
2,00,000/- on account of death of smt. Shyamubai, alleging that deceased was operated on 18/08/ 03 for family planning, who died on 19/08/03. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.
4. FA. No. 210/06, (State Vs. Susanbai):-In this case suit was filed for a sum of Rs. 12,20,000/-, alleging that Suganbai was operated on 12/12/98. Suganbai delivered a baby on 07/12/03 because of failure of operation. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -.
5. FA. No. 684/05. (State Vs. Krishnahai):-In this case, suit was filed by Krishnabai for relization of a sum of Rs. 2,12,500/-, alleging that she was operated on 29/01/99, who delivered a baby on 18/10/03 because of failure of operation. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/ -.
6. FA. No. 205/02 (State Vs. Balram):-In this case, the suit was filed b
