JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellants/defendants 2 and 3 challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 06.06.2005, in O.S. No. 16 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. 2. The Plaintiff filed the above said suit for recovery of Rs.4,83,500/-, with interest, towards compensation. 3. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court. 4. The brief averments of the plaint, in O.S. No. 16 of 2003, are as under: (i) The plaintiff is the resident of Tarigopula village, living by coolie work. She was married to one Nadipi Siddaiah and given birth to three children out of wedlock. She is very much consciousness about the society as the present living conditions, she yielded to the advertisements of the third defendant make about the Family Planning Operations and decided herself to went to the Family Planning Operation, she approached first defendant on 19.01.1998 at Government Hospital, Nandikotkur, as per the advice of the first defendant, she admitted in the hospital on 20.01.1998. First defendant conducted Tubectomy Operation on 21.01.1998 and a certificate has been issued to that effect. (ii) In the month of February, 2001, the plaintiff feeling unwell and consulted local doctor and the said doctor declared that the plaintiff is fourth month pregnant and also advised that at that stage she could not terminate the pregnancy. On the advice of medical experts, as it is advanced stage and it will endanger to her life, she gave birth to fourth female child on 02.07.2001. (iii) On 29.07.2001, the plaintiff underwent Laproscopic operation at Government Hospital, Nandikotkur, operated by Dr.N.Radha Krishna Reddy, the doctor, who conducted the second operation on 29.07.2001 opined that the Tubectomy operation conducted by the first defendant on 21.01.1998 was failed. Due to the negligent attitude of the first defendant in performing the Tubectomy Operation, it was failed subsequently. If the first defendant had taken the prudent care, the Tubectomy operation might not have failed. It is very difficult to brought up that child in the present situation, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,83,500/-. 5. If the first defendant had taken the prudent care, the Tubectomy operation might not have failed. It is very difficult to brought up that child in the present situation, hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,83,500/-. 5. The first defendant filed a written statement. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows: (i) There is no negligence on the part of surgeon. No surgeon can prevent such recanalization tubes as it is a natural thing and it cannot be attributed to the negligence. If the Recanalization takes place in any Tubectomy case, one can only say that the patient is unfortunate. If going by statistics it could be said the failure rate of the Tubectomy operations is nearly 4 to 6 in 1000 cases and it could be said this is an un-expected complication in all Tubectomy Sterilization operation and it is not due to any negligence on the part of this defendant. (ii) Every Surgeon after operation and at the time of discharge, they used to advice the patient, if monthly date is missed, they would come and report to doctor, the plaintiff did not report to her about failure of operation. The plaintiff could have come at earliest stage and would have easily terminate the pregnancy. The second defendant filed a written statement by denying the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended that the suit is bad for non-issuance of Section 80 notice and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. Third defendant filed memo adopting the written statement of second defendant. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether there is no negligence on the part of first defendant? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 were marked. 8. (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount? (iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial in the trial Court, on behalf of the Plaintiff, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 to DW3 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 and Ex.X1 were marked. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court partly decreed the Suit vide its judgment, dated 06.06.2005, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellants/defendants 2 and 3 in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard the learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for appellants and Sri A.V.V.S.N.Murthy, learned counsel, appearing for respondent/plaintiff. 10. Learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that respondent/plaintiff alone was negligent in not properly consulting the doctors at the relevant time after the operation was conducted and the plaintiff is not entitled any relief. He would further contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would contend that on appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial Court rightly partly decreed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the Trial Court. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the Suit and the findings recorded by the trial Court and in the light of rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this court, the following points would arise for determination: I. Whether the trial Court is justified in partly decreeing the suit? II. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 13. Point No. 1: Whether the trial Court is justified in partly decreeing the suit? It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she yielded the advertisements given by the government make about the Family Planning Operations and decided herself to went to the Family Planning Operation and she approached the Government Hospital and consulted the first defendant on 19.01.1998, as per the advise of first defendant, she admitted in the hospital on 20.01.1998 and the first defendant conducted Tubectomy operation on 21.01.1998 and on 27.01.1998 she was discharged from the hospital and a certificate was issued to that effect. She further pleaded that she has attended her normal work and in the month of February, 2001, she developed personal problems, consulted the local doctors and she was declared carrying fourth month pregnancy, she could not terminate the pregnancy because of financial conditions and the doctors also advised that it will endanger to her life, consequently she gave birth to a fourth female child on 02.07.2001. She further pleaded that due to the negligent attitude of the government doctors, she suffered a lot and on 29.07.2001, she underwent Laproscopy Operation at Nandikotkur, operated by Dr.Sri N.Radha Krishna Reddy, the doctor, who conducted second operation on 29.07.2001 opining that the Tubectomy operation conducted by the first defendant on 21.01.1998 was failed. Except the negligence of the first defendant, the entire averments pleaded by the plaintiff are admitted by the defendants. 14. It was pleaded by the defendants that the failure rate of Tubectomy operation is nearly 4 to 6 in 1000 cases and the doctor, who conducted Family Planning Operation to the plaintiff, was awarded best performance award in Family Planning Operation by the District Collector, Kurnool and this is the only one case failure in her case and the first defendant pleaded that she has no negligence in conducting the Family Planning Operation. 15. It is the specific case of plaintiff that due to callous and negligent attitude of the first defendant in performing the Tubectomy Operation on 21.01.1998, it was failed subsequently, due to that she gave birth to a fourth female child and she suffered a lot of financial problems and she suffered a mental agony. To prove her case, the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1. It is in the evidence of the plaintiff that she approached Government Hospital for Tubectomy Operation as she did not want any further child, operation was performed by the first defendant on 21.01.1998 and issued Ex.A7 certificate. It is also not in dispute by the defendants that inspite of this operation, the plaintiff became pregnant and again she approached the private doctor, as she was not getting the regular periods, at where she was confirmed carrying fourth month pregnancy and the doctors advised not to terminate the pregnancy as it is in advanced stage, consequently, she gave birth to fourth female child on 02.07.2001 and later on 29.07.2001 she underwent Laproscopic operation in the Government Hospital conducted by Government doctor/DW2. Ex.X1 also got marked through DW2. The material on record reveals that in cross examination, the plaintiff admits that she could not go to the hospital for 5 or 6 months due to financial trouble and whenever she approached the government hospital, the doctor was not available and she did not get periods and she roamed the hospital for one year and getting irregular periods and when she went to the Government Hospital, first defendant was not available. To prove her case, the plaintiff also relied on the evidence of PW2. 16. Admittedly, no case is made out by the appellants that there was a negligence on the part of the plaintiff for not taking care subsequent to underwent Tubectomy Operation by the plaintiff. The fact remains that she underwent Tubectomy Operation, which was conducted by the government doctor/ first defendant and a certificate Ex.A7 was issued to that extent. It is also not in dispute by the both sides that inspite of Tubectomy Operation, the plaintiff became pregnant, it was come to light through a private doctor, as the plaintiff was not getting regular periods she went to the private doctor for medical check up and the said doctor confirmed that the plaintiff is carrying fourth month pregnancy and it is not advisable to terminate the pregnancy at the advanced stage. 17. The facts and circumstances of the case reveals a poor and illiterate woman on yielding the advertisement given by the third defendant/government, approached the Government Hospital for undergoing Tubectomy Operation under the Family Planning Programme of the Government, the same is not in dispute by the defendants. The material on record goes to show that the said operation was unsuccessful and she gave birth to a fourth female child. As stated supra, when the plaintiff approached the private hospital, she was informed about the pregnancy and the termination of pregnancy is a risky to her life and the doctors also advised the same to the plaintiff. The birth of a fourth female child leads un-necessary financial problems to the plaintiff. Therefore, the State Government has to protect the rights of a poor and illiterate woman and liable to pay the compensation. As stated supra, due to the negligence of the government doctor, the said Tubectomy Operation was failed. The birth of a fourth female child leads un-necessary financial problems to the plaintiff. Therefore, the State Government has to protect the rights of a poor and illiterate woman and liable to pay the compensation. As stated supra, due to the negligence of the government doctor, the said Tubectomy Operation was failed. The plaintiff, who is innocent and illiterate and poor woman approached the Court below for rendering justice and she is fighting for justice since 20 years. It was alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff was in negligent manner subsequent to the operation of Tubectomy and that the defendants are not liable to pay any compensation. Admittedly the alleged negligence, as pleaded by the defendants, is not at all proved by the defendants. 18. On appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court held that: “in the absence of any such document and reiterating words by DW1 and DW3 that there was no negligence on her part, but the plaintiff being a poor illiterate lady approached the first defendant hospital with a hope to avoid future pregnancy, but instead of operation, again, she gave birth to a child draws to a conclusion that there is something negligence on the part of the first defendant in doing Tubectomy Operation on PW1.” I do not find any illegality in the said finding given by the trial Court. 19. The material on record supports the case of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff approached the Civil Court in the year 2003 and claimed compensation of Rs.4,83,500/- the trial Court vide its judgment dated 06.06.2005 by assigning reasons decreed the suit in-part by granting an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- and directed the government/D2 and D3 to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. Since the first defendant is under the control of government/D2 and D3, the government is liable to pay the compensation to the plaintiff. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and it requires no interference. 20. It is brought to the notice of this Court at the stage of arguments by both sides that appellants deposited 50% of the decree amount before the trial Court. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and it requires no interference. 20. It is brought to the notice of this Court at the stage of arguments by both sides that appellants deposited 50% of the decree amount before the trial Court. Therefore, the appellants are directed to deposit the remaining 50% balance of compensation amount before the trial Court, within 3 months, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to initiate necessary steps as per law. 21. Point No. 2: Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? In view of my findings on point No. 1, I do not find any illegality in the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and the decree and judgment passed by the trail Court is perfectly sustainable under law and it requires no interference. 22. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 06.06.2005, in O.S.No. 16 of 2003 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur. The appellants are directed to deposit the remaining 50% balance of compensation amount before the trial Court, within 3 months, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to initiate necessary steps as per law. No order as to costs. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.