Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAGINI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN versus DR.RAJALAKSHMI, MEDICAL OFFICER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAGINI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN v. DR.RAJALAKSHMI, MEDICAL OFFICER - AS No. 286 of 2002 [2006] RD-KL 3708 (18 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

AS No. 286 of 2002()

1. RAGINI, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DR.RAJALAKSHMI, MEDICAL OFFICER,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,

3. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES,

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.K.KESAVAN KUTTY

For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :18/12/2006

O R D E R

(M.RAMACHANDRAN & A.K.BASHEER, JJ)

A.S.No.286 of 2002-D

Dated this the 19th day of December, 2006



JUDGMENT

Ramachandran, J:

O.S.No.131 of 1995 had been filed before the Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg by a young woman claiming compensation from the Medical Officer of a Government Primary Health Centre. State and Officers of the Health Service Department had been impleaded as defendants. Compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- had been claimed in addition to reimbursement of expenditure allegedly suffered. But, however, the suit had been dismissed.

2. The indigency of the plaintiff had been recognised by this Court, and leave had been granted for filing this appeal without payment of court fee. However, when the matter came up for admission, although we had heard Sri.K.Kesavankutty, learned counsel for the appellant, in extenso, we find hardly any reason to interfere with the judgment of the court below. The suit had been dismissed [AS No.286 of 2006] -2- as early as on 14-10-1977, and for some reason or other, the appeal had come up for admission only today.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, after the birth of her second child, she was desirous of adopting contraceptive devices to prevent another pregnancy. She had been advised by knowledgeable persons that it may be possible to prevent pregnancy by use of a device known as 'Copper-T'. It had to be done under medical supervision and the claim is that the procedure had been carried out without due care. According to the appellant/plaintiff, instead of lying in its position, the 'Copper-T' penetrated the walls of the uterus and got embedded in her rectum portion. It is claimed that although she had reported pain, the doctor had reassured her that there was no cause for concern and consequently she had to suffer a pregnancy, which in due course had been terminated.

4. Although in the written statement it had been admitted that the plaintiff had undergone such procedure, it had been suggested that there is no basis for the allegation that there was any negligence. It is also pointed out that in certain cases position of the 'Copper-T' may change because [AS No.286 of 2006] -3- of the contraction of the uterus, but that was not due to any carelessness, which would have been attributable to the medical attendant. It had been pointed out that after 25-08-1993, the date of placement of the device, the plaintiff had come up for a check up only on 15-03-1994 and therefore the claim that she was having pain and suffering from the very inception could not have been considered as sustainable.

5. After issues were framed, the Subordinate Judge had examined the matter, with reference to the evidence that had been tendered, and had come to a positive conclusion that there was no negligence attributable to the medical attendant. Due care and caution, according to him, had been taken and consequently there was no case made out for awarding compensation.

6. We had gone through the details of the claims, the contentions and the defence, and are satisfied that the issue has been approached in the right perspective. Perhaps the plaintiff might have suffered inconveniences, but unless it is directly attributable to culpable negligence, no actionable claim can arise. The risk of the procedure had been made known to her, and she had agreed to abide by the conditions [AS No.286 of 2006] -4- which had been set before the procedure.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore dismiss the appeal, as no interference is warranted. (M.RAMACHANDRAN)

JUDGE

(A.K.BASHEER)

JUDGE

mks/ [AS No.286 of 2006] -5-

(M.RAMACHANDRAN &A.K.BASHEER, JJ)


================================
A.S.No. 286 of 2002
================================


JUDGMENT


================================

Dated: 18th day of December, 2006


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.