ORDER 1. Matter has come up on pauper application No.4/2016 filed by applicant-appellant as an indigent person assailing the judgment dated 31.05.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby and whereunder her civil suit for claiming damages of Rs.8,80,000/- was dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for applicant-appellant and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for applicant-appellant submits that applicant was permitted to institute the civil suit for damages as forma pauperis (indigent person) before the trial court however, the trial court has dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 31.05.2016, therefore, applicant may be permitted to pursue the first appeal as an indigent person in view of provision of Order 44 Rule 1 CPC. 4. On merits of case, counsel for applicant submits that this is a case where applicant approached to the Government Hospital, (Janana Hospital Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur) for the purpose of termination of her pregnancy and she was admitted in government hospital on 23.05.2001. The applicant was operated on 24.05.2001 by government doctors on duty and thereafter she was advised to come back to the hospital for re-examination after 45 days before the Family Welfare Centre. 5. As per plaint, instead of approaching to the Family Welfare Centre, she visited to doctors at her own expenses. On recommendation of sonography, in the report of sonography dated 27.07.2001, applicant was found having pregnancy of 15 weeks. Applicant submitted that thereafter, respondents did not perform the operation to clear the pregnancy and applicant had to give birth to a female child on 11.01.2002. 6. In such circumstances, applicant instituted the civil suit claiming damages from respondents and concerned government doctors for negligence on their part. 7. On facts mentioned hereinabove, this is a case where applicant herself approached to government hospital seeking termination of her pregnancy, which is permissible as per provisions and procedure prescribed under the Medical Treatment of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1971') [now the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021]. 8. Section 8 of the Act of 1971 reads as under:- '8. Protection of action taken in good faith.- No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any registered medical practitioner for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.' 9. 8. Section 8 of the Act of 1971 reads as under:- '8. Protection of action taken in good faith.- No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie against any registered medical practitioner for any damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act.' 9. Learned trial court while dismissing applicant's suit vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2016 has resorted to aforesaid provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1971 and in issue No.6 has clearly held that suit for damages against government doctors is not maintainable. That apart, the trial court has also examined the issue of negligence on the part of government doctors and observed that it is not disputed that operation for termination of pregnancy was conducted on 24.05.2001 but applicant was advised to come back after 45 days to the Family Welfare Centre for re-examination and she never turned up. 10. The trial court has observed that as per provisions of the Act of 1971, applicant could have got terminated her pregnancy up to the period of 20 weeks, however, it appears that applicant, after failure of her operation performed on 24.05.2001 opted to continue her pregnancy and therefore, she has not turned up for re-examination as advised by government doctors. 11. The trial court placed reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in cases of Martin F. D'Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq reported in [ (2009) 3 SCC 1 ], Jacob Mathew (Dr.) vs. State of Punjab reported in [ (2005) 3 CPJ 9 (SC)], Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre reported in [ (2010) 3 SCC 480 ], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that on availability of such factual matrix and in the given facts and circumstances, no negligence on the part of government doctors can be held. There are ample reasons for failure of termination of pregnancy operation and merely on that account, any government doctor who acted in good faith in discharge of his duties in performing the operation, cannot be held negligent. 12. There are ample reasons for failure of termination of pregnancy operation and merely on that account, any government doctor who acted in good faith in discharge of his duties in performing the operation, cannot be held negligent. 12. On the face value of such fact findings, the suit for damages led by applicant itself has not been found maintainable by virtue of Section 8 of the Act of 1971 and in that situation, the provision of Order 33 Rule 5 (F) CPC comes in operation and there is no purpose to allow the present pauper application to pursue the first appeal as forma pauperis therefore, the first appeal as well as pauper application are dismissed. 13. However, it is observed that if there is any scheme of government to award compensation for such victims like applicant, this order will not come in way, if applicant claims for compensation from the State Government under the scheme. Applicant is free to move any application before the State Government, if any application is filed, respondents may consider the same, according to the scheme and entitlement of applicant.