Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is said to have undergone family planning operation in the Government Headquarters Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 31.1.2005. But, inspite of the operation, she became pregnant again. Setting out the said facts, the petitioner sent a representation to the second on 7.8.2006 and to the third respondent on 17.8.2006 seeking adequate compensation. As there was no response, she again sent a representation to the 1st respondent on 11.9.2006 seeking a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and also sought for a job in the third respondent hospital either to her or to her husband. But no action has been taken till date. In the said circumstances, the above writ petition has been filed seeking the issuance of writ of mandamus. 3. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.11048 of 2006, decided on 11.12.2006, wherein this Court has observed as follows: “2. Even if the petitioner had undergone a family planning operation and subsequently she became pregnant that fact alone is not sufficient to establish the negligence on the part of the surgeon who performed the operation. The negligence as a matter of fact has to be pleaded and proved with acceptable evidence and if the surgeon, who performed the operation, is not fully qualified that has also to be proved by the petitioner. The above said disputed questions of fact can be established only in a civil Court and not in a writ petition filed under 226 of the Constitution of India. It is settled law that disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the the above writ petition is misconceived and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner if so advised to seek appropriate legal remedy before the competent forum.” 4. Following the above decision, this writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to seek appropriate legal remedy before the competent forum.