Judgment Arun Madan, J.-This order will dispose of the above application for compliance of order, dated 22-9-1989 passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3967/1989 filed by the applicant-petitioner. This Court while disposing of the writ petition allowed the same in terms of its order, dated 22-9-1989 with the direction to the State Government for conducting thorough inquiry into the matter and the circumstances resulting in the death of the petitioner’s wife Smt. Lalitabai while she was being operated for Laproscopic Tubectomy on 2nd April, 1989 at Primary Health Centre, Gangapurcity, District Sawaimadhopur. This Court had also directed vide the said order that a high level inquiry to be initiated into the matter so as to ascertain the cause of death of Smt. Lalitabai and to fix the responsibility for negligence, if any, on the concerned Doctor. It was further directed that if the circumstances leading to the death of the petitioner’s wife were accidental on account of carelessness and negligence on the part of the Doctor then appropriate compensation shall be paid by the State Government to the petitioner within two months from the said date. 2. Pursuant to the above directions of this Court an inquiry was conducted into the matter by the Enquiry Committee constituted by the State Government. The said Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the State Government on 15-7-1992. The conclusions as well as the recommendations of the said Committee mentioned in the inquiry report are self -explanatory containing startling revelations which are as under:--“CONCLUSIONS: 1. Death was caused by neurogenie shock resulting in cardiac arrest, caused by insertion of pneumo peritoneal needle. This, while rare, is not unknown. 2. Dr. C. P. Gupta does not appear to have been intoxicated while operating, 3. Without proof , to the contrary, we are inclined to accept the doctor’s statement that he did not leave the hospital after giving premedication injections, 4. While the death of the patient was extremely unfortunate, there does not appear to be any wilful negligence on the part of Dr. C. P. Gupta who besides being M. S. in Gynaecology, appears competent and has performed 10-12 thousand laproscopic sterilizations in the past, according to his statement.” “RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. We are given to understand that only 64 deaths have occurred since 1980 while laproscopic tubectomy operations numbering approximately 2 lacs are being done every year. C. P. Gupta who besides being M. S. in Gynaecology, appears competent and has performed 10-12 thousand laproscopic sterilizations in the past, according to his statement.” “RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. We are given to understand that only 64 deaths have occurred since 1980 while laproscopic tubectomy operations numbering approximately 2 lacs are being done every year. This does not appear to be an unreasonable number. Since the number of deaths is only 64, and since the nature of the operation is extremely sensitive, one feels that substantial compensation should be given to the husband of deceased Smt. Lalita Bai, who has three small children to support and has lost his life-partner, who was a substantial income earner. 2. While cardiac arrest due to pneumo peritoneal needle insertion is rare but not unknown, we feel that the life of the patient could have been saved if adequate resuscitative facilities e.g. Endotracheal anaesthesic, defibrillator and cardiac monitoring equipment had been available. Since every human life is equal, we feel that whenever laproscopic tubectomy is being done whether in a major hospital or in smaller hospitals or in a laproscopic tubectomy Camp, a trained anesthetist with M. S. degree in anesthesiology, and the above mentioned equipment should be available. This should be mandatory for every laproscopic tubectomy operation, in view of the sensitive nature of the operation and the fact that the patient is young, disease free and healthy. Other than the lack of the above mentioned resuscitative equipment and trained anesthetist, we find no evidence to doubt the competence or integrity or efforts made by Dr. C. P. Gupta.” 3. A perusalof the inquiry report itself reveals that if the adequate safeguards by making necessary equipments as suggested by the Committee were made available to the concerned Doctor who had conducted the laproscopic tubectomy operations were adopted, the death of the patient could have been possibly avoided. I have also heard Dr. C. P. Gupta.” 3. A perusalof the inquiry report itself reveals that if the adequate safeguards by making necessary equipments as suggested by the Committee were made available to the concerned Doctor who had conducted the laproscopic tubectomy operations were adopted, the death of the patient could have been possibly avoided. I have also heard Dr. P. L. Bansal, Additional Director, Medical and Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur in this connection who, while confirming the report of the Enquiry Committee, has suggested that in view of the sensitive nature of the laproscopic tubectomy operation, whenever such operations are conducted whether in the hospitals or the camps organised for such purposes, necessary medical equipments such as endotrachial anaesthesia, defibrillator and cardiac monitoring equipments should compulsorily be made available to the concerned Doctor conducting such operations besides providing necessary trained staff for the assistance of the said Doctor at the time of operation. If it is not possible to provide such equipments in the camps organised for such purposes, then no risk should be taken to conduct the operations in the camps and the patient should be advised to undergo such operation only in the hospitals where such equipments are available. I am further of the opinion that it was the responsibility of the State Government (Department of Health Services) to have taken adequate cafe and precaution that all above referred medical equipments were made available to the concerned Doctor who had conducted the operation on the petitioner’s wife. I am of the considered opinion that on the principle of vicarious liability and the doctrine of ‘res ipsa liquitor’ the department of Health Services, Gangapurcity, which is an instrumentality of the State cannot escape responsibility, since the concerned Doctor who conducted the laproscopic tubectomy operation was an employee of the State Government rendering his services at primary health centre, Gangapurcity District Sawaimadhopur and the incident occurred in the discharge of his official duty towards the employer i.e., the State Government of Rajasthan. Hence the said department is vicariously liable for the acts of its employee. 4. A perusalof the report of the Enquiry Committee further reveals that other than the lack of the above mentioned resuscitative equipment and trained anesthetist, there is no evidence on the record to doubt the competence or the integrity of efforts made by the concerned Doctor who had conducted the operation of the petitioner’s wife. 5. 4. A perusalof the report of the Enquiry Committee further reveals that other than the lack of the above mentioned resuscitative equipment and trained anesthetist, there is no evidence on the record to doubt the competence or the integrity of efforts made by the concerned Doctor who had conducted the operation of the petitioner’s wife. 5. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the recommendations of the Committee itself that substantial compensation be given to the husband of the deceased Smt. Lalitabai who is applicant-petitioner herein and who has three minor children to support and lost his life partner who was about 30 years of age at the time of her death and was earning Rs. 500/-PM from tailoring business and also the fact that the petitioner is having only a meagre income of Rs. 300/-, 400/-PM as per the record, I am of the considered opinion that it will be just and appropriate that a sum of Rupees 1,00,000/-be awarded to the petitioner by the State Government by way of compensation which has been claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition itself 6. Theapplication is accordingly allowed and disposed of with direction that since the Enquiry Committee in terms of its recommendations in inquiry report dated 15-7-95 has exonerated the concerned Doctor and since he has hot been found negligent in conducting operation, no responsibility be fixed on him by the department. It is further directed that henceforth whenever laproscopic tubectomy operation is conducted whether in major hospitals or similar hospitals of the State Government or in the camps organised for such purposes, a trained Anesthetist with M.S. degree in Anesthesiology and adequate resuscitative facilities e.g. endotrachial anaesthesia, defibrillator and cardiac monitoring equipment should be compulsorily made available at the time of such operation. This should be mandatory for every laproscopic tubectomy operation, in view of the sensitive nature of the operation with a view to avoid risk and also with a view to avoid recurrence of such happenings in future. This should be mandatory for every laproscopic tubectomy operation, in view of the sensitive nature of the operation with a view to avoid risk and also with a view to avoid recurrence of such happenings in future. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the recommendations of the Committee itself that substantial compensation be awarded to the husband of the deceased Lalitabai, who is applicant-petitioner herein and who has three minor children to support and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has lost his life partner who was quite young about 30 years of age at the time of death and contributing Rs. 500/-PM from tailoring business for maintenance and up-keep of the family and also the fact that the petitioner is only having a meagre income of Rs. 400/-, 500/-PM as per the record, I am of the considered opinion that it will be just and appropriate that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - be provided to the petitioner by way of compensation by the State Government. This amount shall carry interest @ 12% per al-mum from the due date, i.e., 22-9-1989 till the date of actual payment. The amount of Rs. 10,000/ - which was paid to the petitioner by the Collector, Sawaimadhopur on the spot as interim relief shall not be deducted from the amount of compensation. 7. It is directed that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-shall be deposited by the petitioner in fixed deposit joint account of the petitioner and three minor children in any nationalised bank. The said fixed deposit shall be made initially for a period of two years and shall be renewed thereafter for a further period of two years each till the minor children of the petitioner attain the age of majority. The income derived from the principal amount by way of interest shall be utilised by the petitioner exclusively for the welfare of the minor children till they attain the age of majority. 8. It is further directed that the above amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ with interest @ 12% per annum from due date shall be paid to the petitioner by the State Government within a period of four months from today as agreed between learned Counsel for the parties. There will be no order as to cost. 8. It is further directed that the above amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ with interest @ 12% per annum from due date shall be paid to the petitioner by the State Government within a period of four months from today as agreed between learned Counsel for the parties. There will be no order as to cost. A copy of this order shall be sent by the registry of this Court to the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan and the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for immediate compliance with a direction that the said functionaries of the State shall issue necessary instructions for future guidance in public interest to all the hospitals of the State for providing necessary medical equipments to the hospitals run by the State Government where such operations are conducted or the camps organised for such purposes in order to avoid recurrence of such happenings in future.