SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 33345

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top