HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J
AMUTHA.J – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR – Respondent
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 6.
2.The petitioner underwent family planning operation on 24.07.2018 at Government Primary Health Centre, Kuttakuzhy (sixth respondent herein). The petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the same, she conceived again and gave brith to a child. Seeking compensation, the present writ petition has been filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.
4.I had occasion to deal with similar cases. It is an established medical fact that family planning operation is not always 100% foolproof. There is scope for occasional failure. The Government has therefore issued government order providing for payment of a consolidated sum of Rs.30,000/-. If the petitioner can demonstrate that the family planning operation itself was negligently performed, then the petitioner will be entitled to compensation. But before me, the materials are utterly insufficient. The Court cannot not infer negligence on the part of the respondents mere
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.