JUDGMENT

The appellant/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2006 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Shivpuri, in Civil Suit No.3-B/2006, whereby her suit for compensation/damages on account of medical negligence on the part of the defendants has been dismissed, has filed the present appeal under Section 96 of the CPC.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that she belongs to weaker section of society and is financially poor, having no independent source of income. Her husband is a labourer, and they are residing in rented accommodation. The plaintiff was already having five children, of whom the youngest daughter was 10 months old. She, therefore, contacted defendant no.3 & 4 for sterilization operation at District Hospital, Shivpuri. After performing the necessary tests and completing all formalities, defendant no.4 performed the operation on 17.03.2004.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that for about 1 to 2 months, everything went well. Thereafter, she felt stomach pain and, therefore, visited defendant no.4. After a routine check-up, she prescribed certain medicines. However, the plaintiff did not get relief and again visited defendant no 4 about 3 to 4 times.

4. Having not received any relief, the plaintiff visited Dr. Uma Jain in the District Hospital, Shivpuri itself, who advised her to undergo Ultrasound Sonography. In the Ultrasound report dated 04.07.2004, it was found that the plaintiff was pregnant. Dr. Jain asked the plaintiff to show all the reports to the same doctor who had performed the operation. The plaintiff accordingly again visited defendant no.3 & 4 with all her reports. It is alleged by the plaintiff that defendant no. 3 & 4 did not treat her properly, nor gave her correct advice. On the contrary, the plaintiff was accused of suppressing the factum of her pregnancy on the date of the operation.

5. The plaintiff contended that the sterilization operation was performed after all necessary tests and, therefore, the defendants were supposed to know about her pregnancy. However, this fact was not disclosed to her, and the operation was performed. She thus alleged medical negligence on the part of defendant no.3 & 4.

6. It is further averred by the plaintiff that she made a complaint against defendant no.3 & 4 to the Collector, Shivpuri, on 27.09.2004, who forwarded the same to defendant no.2 for inquiry. It is alleged that defendant no.2 closed her complaint without proper inquiry on 22.11.2004.

7. The plaintiff gave birth to her sixth (female) child on 25.10.2004.Later, after serving notice under Section 80 of the CPC on the defendants on 18.01.2005, the present suit was filed on 24.12.2005. The plaintiff claimed compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh jointly and severally from the defendants.

8. The defendants filed a common written statement, denying the plaintiff's claim. In substance, it was their case that the operation was performed as per the protocol and prescribed procedure. There was no negligence on the part of the defendants. It is averred that the tests performed before the surgery did not disclose the pregnancy and, therefore, the defendants had no occasion to know about the same. They also relied upon the consent letter dated 17.03.2004, whereby the plaintiff had willingly agreed to undergo the operation.

9. It is also averred in the written statement that, based upon the Sonography report dated 04.07.2004, the plaintiff had a pregnancy of 18 to 20 weeks. When the plaintiff met defendant no.4 on 06.07.2004, she advised her for termination of pregnancy. However, the plaintiff did not turn up. As per defendants, the plaintiff conceived on or about 10.03.2004. As per their case, it is not possible to detect a pregnancy of about one week by Sonography or Pathological tests.

10. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1, wherein she gave her version as stated