1. The first petitioner has moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution, seeking compensation of? 5 lacs for a failed vasectomy operation, claiming this amount to be necessary for the education and survival of the second petitioner, who is the child bom subsequent to the surgery.

2. The marriage of the first petitioner is Stated to have been solemnized sixteen years ago. The first petitioner and his spouse have five children of whom the last was Stated to have been adopted. The first petitioner was operated upon by the district hospital, Hardoi on 27 Febiaary, 2009 by the fourth respondent. The case is that, despite the surgery, the spouse of the first petitioner became pregnant after a few months of the date of the surgery and the second petitioner was born.

3. An amount of Rs. 30,000/- was admittedly paid to the first petitioner and his spouse on 29 May, 2013 for the failed vasectomy surgery under and pursuant to an insurance policy of I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurance policy has been obtained by the State and a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- was paid.

4. The petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State o