Judgment ( 1. ) THIS judgment shall also govern the disposal of FA. Nos. 437/97, 187/04, 210/07 and 458/07 and FA. Nos. 205/02, 227/03, 416/04, 352/05, 684/05, 146/06, 210/06 and 489/06 as in all the aforesaid appeals compensation has been claimed on, account of failure of Tubectomy Operation either on account of death of the woman, who was operated or the operated women has given birth after the operation. Thus, in all the suits compensation has been claimed on account of medical negligency. Since a common question of law is involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are being decided by one judgment. However in all the suits, the claimants are different and the judgment has also been passed by different-different courts. FA. Nos. 437/97, 187/04, 685/06, 210/07, 458/07 are filed by the appellants / claimants by dis-satisfying the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below whereby either the suit filed by the appellant for compensation has been dismissed or amount awarded is inadequate. While FA. Nos. 205/02, 227/03, 416/04, 352/05, 684/05, 146/06, 210/06 and 489/06 are being filed by the State by dissatisfying the decree passed by the learned Court below whereby compensation has been awarded on account of medical negligency. FA. Nos. 227/03 and 187/04 are being filed by both the parties by dissatisfying the judgment and decree dated 16/01/03 passed in Civil Suit No. 9-B/02. ( 2. ) FULL and complete particulars of all the cases are shown in the statement mentioned hereinbelow:- ( 3. ) FACTS of each case are as under:- 1. FA. No. 352/05, (State Vs. Suarambai):-In this suit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-was claimed, alleging that saurambai is Harijan and is below poverty line. At the relevant time, she was having three children, therefore, she got herself operated for family planning on 18/02/97, at B. R. M. Hospital, Ujjain. but delivered a baby Rani @ Madhu, who is respondent No. 2 on 06/03/2000 because of failure of operation. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents for enhancement of amount of compensation for which neither Court fee has been paid nor any application is filed to allow the respondents to prosecute the cross-objections as indigent person. 2. FA. No. 416/04. (State Vs. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents for enhancement of amount of compensation for which neither Court fee has been paid nor any application is filed to allow the respondents to prosecute the cross-objections as indigent person. 2. FA. No. 416/04. (State Vs. Chotesingh):-In this case suit was filed by Smt. Chandrawati, wife of chotesingh in her lifetime, alleging that she was operated on 12/ 12/86 at Government Hospital, Malharganj, Indore. She was hospitalized up to 20/12/86. Penicillin Injection was given to Smt. Chandrawati, without any clinical examination, and because of injection her body below the waist become lifeless. It was alleged that before injecting, it was the duty of the doctors to investigate, whether this type of injection could be applied or not. It was alleged that she was shifted to M. Y. Hospital, Indore. In the suit a sum of rs. 10,00,000/- was claimed. During pendency of the suit Smt. Chandrawati, aged 35 years died on 28/09/87. Suit was continued by her legal representatives. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. 3. FA. No. 489/06. (State Vs. Ku. Shanti):-The suit was filed for Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of death of smt. Shyamubai, alleging that deceased was operated on 18/08/ 03 for family planning, who died on 19/08/03. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -. 4. FA. No. 210/06, (State Vs. Susanbai):-In this case suit was filed for a sum of Rs. 12,20,000/-, alleging that Suganbai was operated on 12/12/98. Suganbai delivered a baby on 07/12/03 because of failure of operation. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. 5. FA. No. 684/05. (State Vs. Krishnahai):-In this case, suit was filed by Krishnabai for relization of a sum of Rs. 2,12,500/-, alleging that she was operated on 29/01/99, who delivered a baby on 18/10/03 because of failure of operation. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 90,000/ -. 6. FA. No. 205/02 (State Vs. Balram):-In this case, the suit was filed by legal representatives of deceased Rekhabai for realization of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, alleging that Rekhabai was operated on 28/04/2000, who died on 01/05/2000 because of negligence of doctors. Learned Court below a sum of Rs. 1,30,400/ -. 7. FA. No. 146/06. (State Vs. Padma Jhanihoti:-The suit was filed for relization of a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, alleging that Rekhabai was operated on 28/04/2000, who died on 01/05/2000 because of negligence of doctors. Learned Court below a sum of Rs. 1,30,400/ -. 7. FA. No. 146/06. (State Vs. Padma Jhanihoti:-The suit was filed for relization of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for compensation on account of failure of TT operation of Smt. Padma jhanjhot, which took place on 28/12/96, and she delivered a baby on 17/03/99. Learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/ -. 8. FA. No. 437/97. (Munnibai Vs. State):-The suit was filed for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, alleging that appellant was operated on 13/02/92 and appellant delivered a baby on 02/02/93 because of failure of operation. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit. 9. FA. No. 685/06. (Radheshyam Vs. State):-The suit was filed for relization of a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- on account of death of Kailashbai, who was operated on 13/11/2000 and died during the course of operation, because of negligence of doctors. Suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court as time barred. 10. FA. No. 187/04. (Kamal Vs. State) and FA. No. 227/ 03. (State Vs. Kamal):-The suit was filed by one Kamal @ Kallu and Laxmibai, wherein a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was claimed, on account of failure of TT operation of Laxmibai, which took place on 25/11/92 and laxmibai delivered a baby on 26/09/2000. Learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- because of failure of operation. FA. No. 187/04 has been filed by plaintiff alleging that the amount awarded is inadequate which deserves to be enhanced. FA. No. 227/03 has been filed by defendant State wherein the grievance is that learned court below committed error in passing the decree in favour of plaintiff. 11. FA. No. 210/07 (Sunitabai Vs. State):-The suit was filed for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/-alleging that on 05/12/97 Sunitabai was operated and delivered a baby on 05/12/02. Learned Court below dismissed the suit. 12. FA. No. 458/07 (Savitribai Vs. State):-In this case the suit was filed for realization of a sum of rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation alleging that appellant was operated for TT operation on 20/01/97 but because of negligence of the doctors, appellant delivered the baby on 28/02/98. Learned Court below dismissed the suit. ( 4. Learned Court below dismissed the suit. 12. FA. No. 458/07 (Savitribai Vs. State):-In this case the suit was filed for realization of a sum of rs. 1,00,000/-as compensation alleging that appellant was operated for TT operation on 20/01/97 but because of negligence of the doctors, appellant delivered the baby on 28/02/98. Learned Court below dismissed the suit. ( 4. ) THUS, in all the cases filed by the State the grievance of the State is that the learned court below committed error in awarding the compensation on account of failure of TT operation and on account of death of the lady, who passed away during/after the operation. While in the appeals filed by the claimants, against the judgment and decree, whereby the suit filed by the claimants on account of death or on account of delivery of unwanted child, the compensation claimed on account of medical negligence is either on lower side or suit has been dismissed. In FA. No. 685/06 which is a death case on account of medical negligence the suit has been dismissed on the ground that suit is barred by law of limitation. ( 5. ) THUS in all the appeals filed by the State and also filed by, the claimants a common question of law is involved to the effect that whether the claimant who has delivered an unwanted child because of failure of TT operation or the legal representatives of the deceased who died during/after the operation, are entitled for compensation from the State and others on account of medical negligency or not? If yes to what extent? Since a common question of law is involved in all the appeals, therefore, all the appeals are clubbed together and are being decided by a common judgment. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in all the appeals submit that inspite of tubectomy Operation, (which shall be referred herein after as TT Operation) they delivered an unwanted child. It is submitted that this happened because of utter carelessness and negligence on the part of State. It is also submitted that in the cases, in which death occurred during the course of operation or immediately after the operation, the State is liable for payment of compensation. So far as failure of TT Operation is concerned, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of State of MP. Vs. It is also submitted that in the cases, in which death occurred during the course of operation or immediately after the operation, the State is liable for payment of compensation. So far as failure of TT Operation is concerned, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the matter of State of MP. Vs. Asharam, Reported in 1997 ACJ, 1224, wherein a man, who underwent family planning operation in a camp and his wife delivered a child after 15 months from the date of operation, claimed compensation alleging that operation filed due to negligency of the doctor, who performed operation in the course of his employment and State is vicariously liable for damages, this Court held that the word negligence is the omission to do something which a prudent and responsible man would do or doing something which such a man would not do. This Court further held that there was actionable negligence on the part of doctor who performed the operation in the course of his employment and State is vicariously liable for damages and awarded a sum of rs. 20,000/ -. ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision Honble Apex Court in the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Santra, Reported in 2000 ACJ 1188, wherein State of haryana launched family planning programme for arresting growth of population, claimant was operated. Certificate was issued and the claimant was assured that full, complete and successful sterilisation operation has been performed upon and she would not conceive a child in future, who conceived and gave birth to a female child, who was already having seven children, the Honble Apex Court held that the doctor was negligent, who did not completely rule out the possibility of conception by leaving left Fallopian tube untouched and the State is vicariously liable for damages. ( 8. ) RELIANCE was also placed on a decision High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter of Fulla Devi Vs. State of Haryana, Reported in 2005 ACJ 51 , wherein woman gave birth to a female unwanted child within two years of tubectomy Operation, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that arrival of a child despite sterilization operation is per se proof of negligence of the doctor and defendants are liable to damages. ( 9. State of Haryana, Reported in 2005 ACJ 51 , wherein woman gave birth to a female unwanted child within two years of tubectomy Operation, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that arrival of a child despite sterilization operation is per se proof of negligence of the doctor and defendants are liable to damages. ( 9. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of Mahaveer Hospital and Research Centre Vs. Allade suvarnamma, Reported in 2007 ACJ 851 , wherein the patient underwent operation and steel rod was inserted in her fractured hip bone which was provided by the hospital authorities, patient suffered swelling and blisters on operated part with pus secretion after a few months, doctor who conducted operation opined that infection was due to metal reaction of steel rod. Rod was got removed by the same doctor in another hospital and doctor found corrosion on the rod and he opined that blisters could have been due to corrosion, it was held that the patient has suffered complications which developed after the operation and she had to undergo another operation, therefore, patient is entitled for compensation on account of medical negligency. ( 10. ) FURTHER reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Laxman balkrishna Joshi Vs. Trimhak Rapu Godbole, Reported in 1968 ACJ 183, wherein in a death case where a boy fractured his leg, surgeon reduced the fracture by using excessive manual force, without giving anesthetic. With the result the boy died because of shock, it was held by the Honble Apex Court that the duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in the administration of the treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must give to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise reasonable degree of care. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in the administration of the treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must give to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judge in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires. The doctor no doubt has a discretion in choosing the treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively ampler in cases of emergency, ( 11. ) ON the strength of aforesaid decisions learned counsels for claimants / plaintiffs in all the cases submits that the learned Court below committed error either in dismissing the suit or in awarding inadequate amount. Mr. Sumit Samvatsar learned Counsel for the appellant in FA. No. 458/07 also placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Smt. Laxmi Vs. Director of Medical Services Family planning and Welfare Department, Reported in AIR 08 NOC, Page 952, wherein while considering the aspect of deficiency in service under the provisions of consumer Protection Act, National Consumer disputes redressal commission, New delhi held that unwanted pregnancy after tubectomy operation, in absence of evidence showing operation was wrongly performed, fact of conceiving and birth not sufficient to attract principle of res ipsa liquitur. It was also observed by the commission that failure due to natural causes not ground for claiming compensation and the patient is only entitled for ex-gratia. ( 12. ) MR. SD. Bohra, learned counsel for respondent submits that in exceptional cases the operation fails, but it is not because of negligency on the part of the doctor. It is submitted that even if there is negligency on the part of doctor, then too, the pregnant lady, who was operated is having an option to get the pregnancy terminated. Learned counsel submits that if the lady opts for continuation of pregnancy, then the State can not be blamed and no amount of compensation can be awarded on that account. It is submitted that in death case also even after taking all care and precaution, if the lady dies, then the State can not be held liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that in death case also even after taking all care and precaution, if the lady dies, then the State can not be held liable for payment of compensation. On the strength of these arguments learned counsel for respondent submits that the appeals filed by the State be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below be set aside and the appeals filed by the plaintiffs / claimants be dismissed. ( 13. ) IN relation to failure of sterilization jn the Medical Jurisprudence it has been observed as under:-failure of Sterilization :-This happens to be the most important medico-legal issue regarding the procedure of sterlization. Most of the cases in our consumer for a against the doctors are due to failure of the operation. All sterilization procedures have definite failure rate even in the best of hands. This ranges between 1-4 pregnancies per 1000 women sterilized. The difference in the risk has been demonstrated between laparotomy or laparoseopy with exception of Irving and Uchida techniques. Failure may occur due to the following reasons : 1. Patient may already be pregnant when procedure is carried out. It is important to counsel regarding use of contraceptions before tubal ligation. Farguarson (1996) has reported that as many as 5% women are pregnant at the time of tubal ligation. Sometimes the patients do not give proper history or may insist. on carrying out sterlization in luteal phase because of time convenience. This situation should be avoided as far as possible and, if pressurized, the possibility of existing pregnancy and its responsibility should be mentioned in the consent, itself. 2. Operation may fail because of : (i) a correctly employed technique which was followed by a re-canalisation or the development of a proximal tuboperitoneal fistula. (ii) a procedure which was inappropriately or inadequately performed leading to the continuance of fertility, eg: structures other than a fallopian tube may be operated upon eg the round ligament or a fold of peritoneum between the round ligament and the fallopian tube may be. clipped, ringed or cauterized. Also, a tube could be incompletely cauterized or incompletely clipped or ringed. If a failure of a tubal ligation occurs prior to one year, it is more likely to be associated with a misapplication although this is not a proof of negligence. Failures after this time are more likely to be associated with natural causes. clipped, ringed or cauterized. Also, a tube could be incompletely cauterized or incompletely clipped or ringed. If a failure of a tubal ligation occurs prior to one year, it is more likely to be associated with a misapplication although this is not a proof of negligence. Failures after this time are more likely to be associated with natural causes. The decision as to whether negligence has occurred will depend upon whether standard precautions, methods and care was used just as in any other procedure. ( 14. ) IN the matter of Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab, Reported in 2005 air SCW 3685, wherein Honble Supreme Court has held that a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. It was further observed that an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment. At times, the professional is confronted with making a choice between the devil and the deep sea and he has to choose the lesser evil. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Which course is more appropriate to follow, would depend on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The usual practice prevalent now a days is to obtain the consent of the patient or the person in-charge of the patient if the patient is not in a position to give consent before adopting a given procedure. So long as it can be found that the procedure which was in fact adopted was one which was acceptable to medical science as on that date, the medical practitioner cannot be held negligent merely because he chose to follow one procedure and not another and the result was a failure. It was further observed by the Honble Apex Court that "the essential components of negligence as recognized, are three : "duty", "breach" and "resulting damage", that is to say : 1. the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; 2. the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and 3. the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; 2. the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and 3. damage, which is both casually connected with such recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant. " "thus, a clear distinction exists between simple lack of care incurring civil liability and "very high degree of negligence" which is required in criminal cases". ( 15. ) IN the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram, Reported in 2005 AIR SCW 4108, wherein Honble Supreme Court held that the cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterlization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth. Failure due to natural causes would not provided any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterlization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, if ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed. Honble Apex Court has further observed that a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The medical profession is one of the oldest profession of the world and is the most humanitarian one. There is no better service than to serve the suffering, wounded and the sick. Inherent in the concept of any profession is a code of conduct, containing the basic ethics that underline the moral values that govern professional practice and is aimed at upholding its dignity. Medical ethics underpin the values at the heard of the practitioner-client relationship. In recent times, professionals are developing a tendency to forget that the self-regulation which is at the heard of their profession is a privilege in return for an implicit contract with society to provide good, competent and accountable service to the public. Medical ethics underpin the values at the heard of the practitioner-client relationship. In recent times, professionals are developing a tendency to forget that the self-regulation which is at the heard of their profession is a privilege in return for an implicit contract with society to provide good, competent and accountable service to the public. It must always be kept in mind that a doctors is a noble profession and the aim must be to serve humanity, otherwise this dignified profession will lose its true worth. In recent times the self-regulatory standards in the profession have shown a decline and mis can be attributed to the overwhelming impact of commercialization of the sector. . There are reports against doctors exploitative medical practices, misuse of diagnostic procedures, brokering deals for sale of human organs, etc. It cannot be denied that black sheep , have entered the profession and that the profession has been unable to isolate them effectively. The need for external regulation to supplement professional self-regulation is constantly growing. The high costs and investments involved in the delivery of medical care have made it an entrepreneurial activity wherein the professional look to reaping maximum returns on such investment. Medical practice has always had a place of honour in society; currently the balance between service and business is shifting disturbingly towards business and this calls for unproved and effective regulation, whether internal or external. There is need for introspection by doctors - individually and collectively. They must rise to the occasion and enforce discipline and high standards in the profession by assuming an active role. ( 16. ) IN the matter of State of Haryana Vs. Raj Rani, 2005 AIR SCW 4126, wherein Honble Supreme Court held that child birth in spite of a sterlization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in performance of the operation, or due to certain natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise/several textbooks on medical negligence have recognized the percentage of failure of the sterlization operation due to natural causes to be varying between 0. 3% to 7% depending on the techniques or method choses for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. 3% to 7% depending on the techniques or method choses for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognized by medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons dehors and negligence of the surgeon. In the absence of proof of negligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of the State being held vicariously liable also would not arise. The decree cannot therefore be upheld. ( 17. ) IN the matter of Archana Paul Vs. State of Tripura, Reported in 2005 acj 158, High Court at Gauhati in a claim of compensation for unwanted pregnancy where sterilization operation has been done, held, that the petitions claiming compensation for failure of sterilization operation are liable to be dismissed. ( 18. ) IN the matter of Shiv Kali Bai Vs. Dr. Sunanda Choudhary, Reported in 2007 ACJ 2607 , wherein a woman underwent tubectomy operation but became pregnant after about 1 years and gave birth to a female child and woman claimed damages from the doctor and hospital for monetary burden of bringing up and providing basic and necessary amenities to the unwanted child stating that she belongs to poor strata of society, a Divisional Bench of this Court held that the claimant has failed to prove negligency of the doctor by cogent evidence, hence the claim petition was rightly dismissed. ( 19. ) IN the matter of State of Haryana V/s. Santra (Smt.) Reported in 2000 acj 1188, upon which reliance has been placed by the appellant / plaintiff, Honble apex Court has also held that Medical negligence plays its game in strange ways. Sometimes it plays with life; sometimes it gifts an "unwanted Child. Negligence is a "tort". Every doctor who enters into the medical profession has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill. This what is known as "implied undertaking" by a member of the medical profession that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. Where a person is guilty of negligence per se, no further proof is needed. This what is known as "implied undertaking" by a member of the medical profession that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. Where a person is guilty of negligence per se, no further proof is needed. It was also observed that if it is one that would not have been made by a reasonably competent professional man professing to have the standard and type of skill that the defendant held himself out as having. and acting with ordinary care, then it is negligent. " ( 20. ) FROM perusal of the record it is evident that the claimants, who were operated delivered the baby, after sufficient time of operation. It is also evident that even after having gathered the knowledge of conception, inspite of having undergone sterlization operation, the couple opted for bearing the child, therefore, in the opinion of this Court it ceases to be unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed. ( 21. ) OTHERWISE also the methods of sterilization so far as known to medical science which are most popular and prevalent are not 100% safe and secure. Inspite of the operation having been successfully performed without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural cause. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected from the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice. Medical practice has always had a place of honour in society. Failure of many a sterilization operation, though successfully performed, is attributable to causes other than medical negligence. Yet the doctors are being faced with claim for damages. The State is also being called upon to honour such decrees on the principle of vicarious liability, when the surgeon has performed a surgery in discharge of his duty. Mostly such surgeries are performed on a large scale and as a part of family welfare programme of the government. Obviously, such programme are in public interest. Such like decrees act as a disincentive and have deterrent effect on the surgeons performing sterilization operations. ( 22. ) IN all the cases in which death has occurred the patients were young lady, who were operated for family planning. Before operation also they were found fit for operation. Obviously, such programme are in public interest. Such like decrees act as a disincentive and have deterrent effect on the surgeons performing sterilization operations. ( 22. ) IN all the cases in which death has occurred the patients were young lady, who were operated for family planning. Before operation also they were found fit for operation. In the facts and circumstances of the case the burden was on the state to prove that there were no negligency on the part of State i. e. treating doctor and all the efforts were made to save the life. State was further required to plead and prove that at the time of operation the State was well occupied with all the facilities to meet out all the eventualities. Since State failed to prove the circumstance in which the death occurred and the young lady passed away, therefore, in the opinion of this court learned Court below rightly held the State liable for payment of compensation. ( 23. ) IN FA. No. 416/04 wherein deceased is Chandrawati, who died during pendency of suit, amount awarded is Rs. 2,00,000/-, which appears to be on higher side, which ought to have been Rs. 1,50,000/ -. In FA. No. 489/06 wherein deceased was Shyamubai, who was operated on 18/08/03 and died on 19/08/03, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- awarded appears to be on lower side. In FA. No. 205/02 deceased is Rekhabai, who died on 13/11/2000 during course of operation and the amount awarded is Rs. 1,30,400/-, which appears to be on lower side, which ought to have been Rs. 1,50,000/- in both the appeals. ( 24. ) IN FA. No. 685/06 deceased is Kailashbai, who died on 13/11/2000 during course of operation. In this case suit was filed on 26/10/02, which was dismissed by the learned Court below on the ground that as per article 72 of Limitation Act, suit for compensation on account of negligence can be filed within one year from the date of accrual of cause of action. ( 25. ) IT is true that the suit was not filed within one year. Learned trial Court was of the view that since the suit is not filed within one year, therefore, the suit is barred by law of limitation, hence dismissed. Prior to coming in to force of Limitation act 1963, Limitation Act 1908 was in force. ( 25. ) IT is true that the suit was not filed within one year. Learned trial Court was of the view that since the suit is not filed within one year, therefore, the suit is barred by law of limitation, hence dismissed. Prior to coming in to force of Limitation act 1963, Limitation Act 1908 was in force. As per article 22 of Limitation Act 1908 for computation for any other injury to the person limitation of one year was prescribed from the date when the injury is committed. In the Limitation Act 1963, there is no separate article for computation for any injury to the person. So far as article 72 of Limitation Act 1963 is concerned, it is not for compensation for any injury to person. Therefore, learned Trial Court committed error in dismissing the suit holding it as barred by time by applying article 72 of the Act 1963. Since in the Act of 1963 there is no separate article for claiming compensation on account of injury to the person as was in the old limitation Act 1908, therefore, the suit for injury to person shall govern by article 113 of the Limitation Act 1963, which lays down the limitation of three years for filing a suit for which no limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule. In this case also appellants shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- of account of death of Kailashbai. ( 26. ) IN view of the aforesaid position of law and keeping in view the fact that the claimants preferred to continue the pregnancy after the operation, in the opinion of this court the State is not liable for payment of any amount of compensation towards maintenance and upbringing of an unwanted child. However keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of Smt. laxmi (Supra) appellants / plaintiffs shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as ex-gratia. In FA No. 458/07 also wherein the claim was on account of failure of TT operation and suit was dismissed, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as ex-gratia. Thus appeal filed by the State for setting aside the judgment and decree on account of failure of Tubectoniy Operation stands allowed in part. 25,000/- as ex-gratia. In FA No. 458/07 also wherein the claim was on account of failure of TT operation and suit was dismissed, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as ex-gratia. Thus appeal filed by the State for setting aside the judgment and decree on account of failure of Tubectoniy Operation stands allowed in part. Judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is modified to the extent that in case of birth of an unwanted child the plaintiff mother shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as ex-gratia and in death cases the amount awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased is shown as under.- ( 27. ) AMOUNT awarded by this Court shall carry interest @ 7. 5% pa. In case of failure within three months the amount of interest shall be payable @ 12% P. A. and the difference of amount of interest shall be payable by the defaulting officer. However it is made clear that if any amount in excess has already been paid by the State, then the -State shall not be entitled to recover the same. ( 28. ) WITH the aforesaid observations/all the appeals filed by the State and also filed by the claimants/plaintiffs stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the record of each of the First Appeal. Appeal disposed of.