D.H.SHUKLA - (1.)The petitioner P. P. Prabhakaran residing at 13/L Railway Colony Vishwamitri Baroda has preferred this Civil Revision Application having been aggrieved by the order of the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Baroda dated 10th day of March 1983 in Special Civil Suit No. 235/1980 wherein he held that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit under sec. 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By the same order therefore he directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for its presentation to the proper forum in which the suit ought to have been instituted.
(2.)The facts of the suit may be briefly stated as under :
(3.)The petitioner-plaintiff is the father of two daughters both of whom had suffered serious ailments right from their birth allegedly on account of the negligent operation of the petitioners wife at the time of a delivery earlier in point of time than the birth of these two daughters. The respondent No. 1 Medical Officer-in-charge Government. Hospital P. O. Ottapalam Palghat District Kerala was a Medical Officer who carried out the operation for the purpose of delivery on petitioners wife on 20-4-72. It is alleged that the operation was carried out without blood transfusion and without properly removing the layers of the clotted blood. The petitioners wife was saved but the child died. Petitioners wife was treated for about 34 to 35 days as an indoor patient but she was kept ignorant of the womb-rupture which fact was revealed only at a time when second operation for delivery was done at a later date. The petitioner has further alleged that she was not properly advised and not warned about the danger in subsequent pregnancy. Consequently the second child which was born suffered from mental and serious heart trouble. It is alleged that the petitioners wife was very badly handled during the first operation as a result of which the second child suffers from heart disease and that he has lost the immunity. This second child was born on 18-2-1974 at Railway Hospital Pratapnagar Baroda. It also appears from the judgment that the petitioners grievance is that the third child born to the petitioners wife also suffers from serious ailment allegedly on account of the negligent operation carried out on 20-4-1972. The petitioner avers in his suit that both these children have been subjected to intermittent radiation. Both of them are required to be kept under the cover of Ayurvedic medicines the potency of antibiotic drugs has also its limits. It is averred in the plaint that on 27-9-1976 the Superintendent of Ajmer Railway Medical Hospital advised immediate heart surgery. The petitioner claims that the respondents should pay the expenses of Rs. 3 lacs for the heart operation of his child abroad and should also pay the maintenance of his two sick children.