PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner had undergone operation for tubectomy for which a certification Annex. 1 was issued. This operation was conducted on 19.1.96. Even after this operation, the petitioner gave birth to a child for which petitioner placed on record copy of the birth certificate Annex. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this is a case of negligence of the doctor who conducted the operation and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is personally liable for the damages whereas respondents No. 1 to 3 are vicariously liable for the damages. It is also submitted that petitioner is a poor lady and she cannot afford to pay the litigation amount if she files a suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Santra (Smt.), 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 739 SC : (2000) 5 SCC 182 wherein the decree for compensation was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) IT is clear from the facts mentioned in the writ petition that it is a case of claim of damages for the alleged wrong done by the respondent No. 4 making the respondents No. 1 to 3 vicariously liable. The allegations levelled by the petitioner require investigation of facts, which can be proved only by evidence to find out whether there was a negligence in performance of the above operation, upto what extent that negligence was, how much the loss petitioner is likely to suffer and whether the respondents No. 1 to 3 can be held liable vicariously ? These all facts can be looked into and appropriate compensation on proving the case of the petitioner can be awarded by the civil court.;