IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.02.2026 Kirandeep Kaur ....Appellant V/s The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Chirag Girdhar, Advocate, Ms. Kirandeep Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Amanveer Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is plaintiff’s appeal against the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Court of District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot, vide which the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of damages/compensation, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages/compensation from defendant No.3-Dr. Alka Goyal and for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against the said defendant, for being careless, casual and negligent, while performing her official duties, while examining the plaintiff and further for grant of necessary sanction to prosecute the said defendant.

3.1 It was claimed that while the plaintiff was pregnant, she had been examined by defendant No.3-Dr. Alka Goyal and was made to undergo various tests, including Ultrasound. It was further averred that defendant No.3, on the basis of the said report, told the plaintiff and her husband that the fetus in her womb, was not growing well and was having inherent pre-natal defects right from the conception. It was further told by the said defendant that the fetus would mature into a child full of deformities and hence, it should be aborted. It was further asserted that the relevant treatment papers prepared by defendant No.3 were not legible. The plaintiff, through her counsel, had sent a legal notice to defendant No.3, but instead of clarifying the things, the said defendant sent a totally wrong reply dated 07.06.2014 and similar was the position in her further reply dated 12.08.2014. It was, thus, averred that having failed to explain the treatment prescribed by her, the conduct of defendant No.3 was apparent.

4. Defendants contested the suit. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos 1 and 2, preliminary objections regarding maintainability; court fee; jurisdiction and no notice under Section 80 CPC having been served upon said defendants, were taken. On merits, the averments made in the plaint were denied.

4.1 In a separate written statement filed by defendant No.3, it was asserted that there was no formal check-up as alleged in the plaint. It was further averred that defendant No.3 had medically examined the plaintiff and prescribed some medicines and tests, which were in the interest of the plaintiff so that she could continue with her pregnancy. It was further asserted that the plaintiff having already undergone two abortions, it was a high risk pregnancy and the said fact was duly mentioned in prescription slip dated 31.01.2014. It was further the case of defendant No.3 that she had treated the plaintiff as per the medical ethics and medical science and that proper treatment was given to her. It was further averred that defendant No.3 did not have any knowledge of any alleged second opinion taken by the plaintiff.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of recovery of the amount of damages/compensation as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to further relief of grant of necessary sanction to prosecute the plaintiff as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to other reliefs as prayed for? OPP

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Whether proper Court fee has not been affixed in the plaint? OPD

6. Whether present Court has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present suit? 7. Whether the suit is bad for non