O R D E R

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to investigate into the matter of child swapping and for producing her biological child.

2. According to the petitioner, she was admitted to Dharmapuri Government Medical College and Hospital in Ward No. 501 for delivery. On the same day i.e., on 29.07.2014, she delivered a baby at around 4:45 pm. After major operation, she was shifted to another ward in the 4th floor. She gave birth to a male child and after she regained her conscious, she was informed that she has given birth only to a female child. In fact, the ward boy had asked for Rs.500/- from her husband informing that they were blessed with a male child. When she questioned the authorities, they threatened the petitioner and her husband and informed her that she delivered only a female child.

3. On 10.10.2014, she lodged a complaint before B1 Police Station Dharmapuri, about the swapping of male child with female child. But no action was taken. Aggrieved over the same, she preferred the writ petition on 12th of November 2014.

4. Heard the submissions.

5. According to the petitioner, she had undergone a cesarean operation and delivered a child. She was under anesthesia at that point of time. Her husband was informed the gender of the child by a Ward Boy. Her husband was informed that his wife gave birth to a male child. When she regained conscious, she was informed that she has given birth only to a female child and hence, she sought for DNA test but it was not done. Therefore, she seeks deeper investigation into the matter and also to find out the male child.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader contended that she gave birth to female child and prompt action was taken by the authorities of the hospital and it was found that the petitioner delivered only a female child and not a male child. The information given by a Ward Boy is false and the person competent to inform the birth of the child is only the nurse who assisted during delivery of the child. The nurse delivered the baby to the mother of the petitoner, she was readily waiting outside the labour room and since the child developed some breathing problem, she was admitted to Neonatal ICU to provide appropiate health care arrangements. Therefore, there was no opportunity to swap the child.

7. Further in the enquiry conducted by the hospital authorities, the husband of the petitioner himself admitted that he wrongly understood that his wife delivered a male child and accepted that a female child was shown to him after the child was brought out from the labour room. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is imaginary and not sustainable.

8. On the directions of this Court, the learned Government pleader has produced the medical records including the statement of witnesses examined, pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner against the hospital. In the medical records, it is seen that the petitioner was admitted on 29.07.2014, and delivered a baby at around 4:45 p.m, it was not a normal delivery but a C-section. Another baby was delivered at 4.35 p.m to another couple by name Mr.&Mrs.Madesh. During enquiry, the Doctor who performed the delivery would state that heartbeat of the child of Mrs.Madesh was very weak and therefore they had to perform the delivery immediately and she delivered a male child at 4.35 p.m on the same day. Thereafter, surgery was conducted to the petitioner and she delivered a female child.

9. Statement of the nurse, who attended the petitioner would show that she has taken the child out of the labour room and handed over to the mother of the petitioner and taken steps for admitting the child in a Neonatal ICU Ward and after the admission process was over, they have taken the child into ICU. The petitioner's mother was very much aware of the fact that the petitioner delivered only a female child.

10. Above all, the petitioner's husband himself would state before the enquiry au