Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25096 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit Respondent :- Kamlesh Kumari Counsel for Petitioner :- Indrasen Singh Tomar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
The present petition is directed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat whereby the compensation of Rs.50,000/- was provided to the claimant which is jointly and severely, to be realised from the State of U.P. through District Magistrate/Chief Medical Officer and the concerned Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Barkheda, Pilibhit. The present petition has been filed by the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit in his own capacity with the assertion that at no point of time, the claimant moved an application seeking compensation in case of failure of sterilization operation, as payable under the scheme framed by the State Government.
It is vehemently contended by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that immediately before the sterilization operation, the respondent-claimant was informed both in writing and orally that there were chances of 10% to 15% of failure of the said operation and in case of any such eventuality, she was required to contact the doctor of the Government Women Hospital in writing. The respondent-claimant and her husband after getting due intimation about the pros and cons of the operation had agreed that the same be conducted at the Primary Health Centre. The claimant did not approach the Chief Medical Officer or the doctor at the Community/Primary Health Centre at any point of time informing failure of sterilization operation. The claim petition was directly filed in Permanent Lok Adalat seeking compensation of rupees one lac in the year 2018.
Submission is that the claim petition was not maintainable at all without prior intimation given to the Medical Officer, Barkheda, Pilibhit.
Considering the said submissions and having perused the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat, this much is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the sterilization operation being conducted in the Primary Health Centre, Barkheda, Pilibhit on 26.09.2013 and that it had failed, as a result of which the claimant become pregnant in the year 2018.
On filing of the claim petition, the opposite party namely the petitioner-herein did not produce the doctor who conducted the operation to substantiate their submissions as to how much possibility was there of failure of the said operation. The issue no.1 and 2 framed by the Permanent Lok Adalat with regard to the failure of sterilization operation and the claimants being pregnant was, therefore, decided against the opposite parties. It was, thereafter, recorded that the claimant is a poor lady having seven children. She got herself operated in the year 2013 as she was not in a position to bear another child.
Under Section 22-A sub-clause (b) (v) of the Legal Services Authorities Act' 1987 "public utility service" includes the services rendered by the hospital and dispensary. The district hospital being run by the State Government, therefore, falls within the meaning of "Public Utility Services" under the said provision.
The permanent Lok Adalat has recorded a categorical finding that despite due notice the doctor of primary health centre who had conducted the operation was not produced before it. It has granted compensation to the claimant towards damages and expenses incurred by her in upbringing her eight child i.e. for his nourishment and medicine as also for the pain suffered by the claimant. The amount of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the permanent Lok Adalat cannot be said to be in excess.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Permanent Lok Adalat was not competent to hold the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre responsible for payment of compensation in view of the fact that she was not impleaded and no opportunity was granted to her, is not acceptable for the simple reason that the Chief Medical Officer was party before the Permanent Lok Adalat and was contesting the matter. Being the In- charge of the Primary Health Centre in the district, it was duty of the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit to call for the explanation of the doctor concerned, and, in case, he found fault with the act of the doctor, ought to have granted compensation on his own.
In case the Chief Medical Officer, Pilibhit would have been of the view that there was no fault of the doctor of Primary Health Centre, he was required to produce him as witness before the Permanent Lok Adalat to contest the claim of the respondent.
No such efforts have been made and as such, this court does not find any fault in the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat to hold the State through Chief Medical Officer and Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, both responsible jointly and severely for payment of compensation to the claimant in consonance with the Government scheme.
The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed. Order Date :- 27.7.2018 Himanshu