JUDGMENT : This Appeal, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘the C.P.C.’], is filed by the Appellant/plaintiff challenging the Decree and Judgment, dated 01.08.2007, in O.S. No.55 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool [for short ‘the trial Court’]. The Respondents herein are the defendants in the said Suit. 2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the Suit for claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with future interest and costs against the defendant Nos.1 to 4. 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.55 of 2006, are as under: i) The plaintiff is a poor woman belonging to Boya community, living by agriculture. She was having four children and that she thought of going for tubectomy operation, therefore, she approached the Primary Health Center/ first defendant at Gudur in the year 2000 and she underwent operation on 12.05.2000 and she was issued a certificate to that effect. But in the year 2003, as she conceived, she approached the second defendant hospital for check up and came to know that sterilization done by the first defendant is not successful and the doctor advised that it was too late to get abortion and therefore she gave birth to fifth child. Plaintiff pleaded that due to the fault of first defendant, she was forced to give birth to the fifth child. Again she underwent operation for tubectomy on 14.10.2003 in the second defendant hospital. For the second time, button hole operation was done by the second defendant and a certificate was given to her to that effect. ii) The plaintiff further pleaded that the second defendant seems to have not properly operated. This fact came to her knowledge when she approached the second defendant on 25.08.2005 for health problem, she was checked and found conceived again. This was cross-checked by her in Apollo Medical Center, Kurnool and found that she again conceived was correct. The plaintiff being a poor woman not able to maintain huge family, due to lapses on the part of defendants 1 and 2, she had to give birth to the children. Her health ruined and she is unable to bear the medical expenditure. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit claiming compensation. 5. The plaintiff being a poor woman not able to maintain huge family, due to lapses on the part of defendants 1 and 2, she had to give birth to the children. Her health ruined and she is unable to bear the medical expenditure. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit claiming compensation. 5. The defendants filed a written statement by denying all the averments mentioned in the plaint and further contended as under: - The plaintiff was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool in the Family Planning Unit on 14.01.2003 under I.P.No.33637 for undergoing sterilization operation. As per the history of the case-sheet of the plaintiff, it was a case of failed tubectomy sterilization done at Gudur Mandal Primary Health Center. The plaintiff was operated by the method of Double Puncture Laparoscopy. At the time of operation, it was found that there was continuation of right-side tube and evidence of tubectomy on the left side tube, that D.P.L. was done on 14.10.2003. On 14.10.2003, the plaintiff did not produce any record of sterilization done at Gudur. The case-sheet of the plaintiff discloses that Dr.K.Thirupathaiah was the Medical Officer in primary Medical Center, Gudur. As per the statement of the said doctor, he opened the abdomen layers under local anesthesia could no appreciate the uterus, so Bilateral Tubectomy not done. The plaintiff was advised to undergo D.P.L. Laparoscopic sterilization. The D.P.L. was done by second defendant under local anesthesia+ I.V. sedation. The plaintiff was discharged on 15.10.2003 with an advice to attend for review after one month. As per the records available in the Family Planning Unit, the plaintiff did not turn up for any check up after one month. Second defendant successfully conducted operation on 14.10.2003 by a qualified and experienced medical officer. But no method of tubal sterilization can guarantee a 100% success rate unless it is a total salpingectomy or fimbriectomy. Further recanalization is possible after tubectomy for young age women. There are chances of recanalization which can take place on one or both the sides. So the sterilization woman would become pregnant due to natural cause. This cannot be attributed that the operation was done negligently. It is an acceptable fact that none of the above methods is cent percent “failure free”. Further, there is no cause of action to file the suit and Section 80 C.P.C. Notice, which is mandatory, was not issued. So the sterilization woman would become pregnant due to natural cause. This cannot be attributed that the operation was done negligently. It is an acceptable fact that none of the above methods is cent percent “failure free”. Further, there is no cause of action to file the suit and Section 80 C.P.C. Notice, which is mandatory, was not issued. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-? (ii) Whether the suit is bad for want of Section 80 C.P.C. Notice? (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.A10 were marked. On behalf of the Defendants DW1 was examined, but no documents were marked on behalf of defendants. 8. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 01.08.2007, against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff in the Suit questioning the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial Court. 9. Heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff and the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for respondents/defendants. 10. Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the Court below did not appreciate the documentary evidence and the medical evidence and without taking into consideration of the evidence on record properly, the trial Court dismissed the suit and the said judgment is not in accordance with law and he would contend that the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 11. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals, appearing for respondents, would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal may be dismissed. 12. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, 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: 1. Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in OS.No.55 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in OS.No.55 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool? 2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial court needs any interference? 13. Point No.1 : Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit in OS.No.55 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool ? The case of the plaintiff is that she is a poor woman of Boya community, she is having four children and approached the Primary Health Center/ first defendant at Gudur in the year 2000 and she underwent operation on 12.05.2000 and she was issued a certificate to that effect and the in the year 2003 as she conceived, approached the second defendant hospital for check up and came to know that sterilization done by the first defendant is not successful and the doctor advised that it was too late to get abortion and therefore she gave birth to a child. Plaintiff further pleaded that due to the fault of first defendant, she was forced to give birth to the fifth child. 14. The plaintiff further pleaded that: the second defendant seems to have not properly operated, this fact came to her knowledge when she approached the second defendant on 25.08.2005 for health problem, she was checked and found conceived again, the same was cross-checked by her in Apollo Medical Center, Kurnool and found that she again conceived was correct. The plaintiff being a poor woman not able to maintain huge family, due to lapses on the part of defendants 1 and 2, she had to give birth to the children. Her health ruined and she is unable to bear the medical expenditure. 15. It is the case of the defendants that: the plaintiff was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool in the Family Planning Unit on 14.01.2003 under I.P.No.33637 for undergoing sterilization operation. As per the history of the case-sheet of the plaintiff, it was a case of failed tubectomy sterilization done at Gudur Mandal Primary Health Center. The plaintiff was operated by the method of Double Puncture Laparoscopy. At the time of operation, it was found that there was continuation of right-side tube and evidence of tubectomy on the left side tube, that D.P.L. was done on 14.10.2003. On 14.10.2003, the plaintiff did not produce any record of sterilization done at Gudur. The plaintiff was operated by the method of Double Puncture Laparoscopy. At the time of operation, it was found that there was continuation of right-side tube and evidence of tubectomy on the left side tube, that D.P.L. was done on 14.10.2003. On 14.10.2003, the plaintiff did not produce any record of sterilization done at Gudur. The case-sheet of the plaintiff discloses that Dr.K.Thirupathaiah was the Medical Officer in primary Medical Center, Gudur. As per the statement of the said doctor, he opened the abdomen layers under local anesthesia could no appreciate the uterus, so Bilateral Tubectomy not done. The plaintiff was advised to undergo D.P.L. Laparoscopic sterilization. The D.P.L. was done by second defendant under local anesthesia+ I.V. sedation. The plaintiff was discharged on 15.10.2003 with an advice to attend for review after one month. As per the records available in the Family Planning Unit, the plaintiff did not turn up for any check up after one month. Second defendant successfully conducted operation on 14.10.2003 by a qualified and experienced medical officer. But no method of tubal sterilization can guarantee a 100% success rate unless it is a total salpingectomy or fimbriectomy. Further recanalization is possible after tubectomy for young age women. There are chances of recanalization which can take place on one or both the sides. So the sterilization woman would become pregnant due to natural cause. This cannot be attributed that the operation was done negligently. It is an acceptable fact that none of the above methods is cent percent “failure free”. 16. The plaintiff approached the Court for seeking compensation for the alleged negligence of doctors in first and second defendants hospitals for conducting family planning operation. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the doctors in first and second defendant hospitals are in negligent in conducting the family planning operation to her. In order to prove the alleged negligence on the part of the doctors of defendants 1 and 2 hospitals absolutely no evidence is placed by the plaintiff except her sole testimony as PW1 and so also examined the Mandal Revenue Officer to explain her financial capacity. 17. On the other hand, the first defendant relied on the evidence of DW1. In order to prove the alleged negligence on the part of the doctors of defendants 1 and 2 hospitals absolutely no evidence is placed by the plaintiff except her sole testimony as PW1 and so also examined the Mandal Revenue Officer to explain her financial capacity. 17. On the other hand, the first defendant relied on the evidence of DW1. It is in the evidence of DW1 i.e., medical officer of first defendant hospital that the plaintiff approached his hospital on 12.05.2000 but as per records, the then medical officer opened the abdomen layers under local anesthesia could no appreciate the uterus, so Bilateral Tubectomy not done and the plaintiff was advised to undergo D.P.L. Laparoscopic sterilization by consulting second defendant hospital i.e., Government Head Quarters Hospitals, Kurnool within 10 days. In view of the above admissions of DW1, it is clear that no D.P.L. operation was done in the first defendant hospital. It is relevant to refer about some important admissions made by the plaintiff: those are “she was examined by the doctors at Gudur hospital, they told her that it was not possible for them to perform family planning operation in the said hospital and advised her to approach Government General Hospital, Kurnool and she was advised by the doctors to approach the Government General Hospital, Kurnool immediately, she further admits that she could not immediately went to the Government Hospital, Kurnool, since her husband was suffered paralytic stroke and she approached the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, two years after she was advised by the doctors at Gudur”. In view of the above admissions made by the plaintiff, it is clear that no family planning operation was done to the plaintiff in the first defendant hospital. Therefore, the plaintiff herself failed to prove that she underwent family planning operation in the first defendant hospital at Gudur. 18. The plaintiff deposed in her evidence that she underwent family planning operation on 14.10.2003 in the second defendant hospital, which was evidenced by Ex.A2. The second defendant also admitted that the plaintiff underwent family planning operation on 14.10.2003 in the second defendant hospital. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff underwent family planning operation in the second defendant hospital on 14.10.2003. Ex.A4, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 show that the plaintiff conceived and gave birth to a child even she underwent family planning operation. The second defendant also admitted that the plaintiff underwent family planning operation on 14.10.2003 in the second defendant hospital. Therefore, it is clear that plaintiff underwent family planning operation in the second defendant hospital on 14.10.2003. Ex.A4, Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 show that the plaintiff conceived and gave birth to a child even she underwent family planning operation. It is the case of the defendants that after operation the plaintiff was advised to visit the hospital after one month for review, but she did not turn up. Another contention taken by the defendants is that the D.P.L. operation is not 100% free of failure and there is every chance of recanalization of one or two tubes. In the present case, the plaintiff admitted in her evidence in cross examination that she has not suffered from TB after undergoing family planning operation at Kurnool and for infection and pain she has not approached any doctor for treatment. Another important admission made by her is that she approached the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, two years after she was advised by the doctors at Gudur, before she approached the Government General Hospital, she gave birth to a male issue. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to examine the doctors of Apollo Hospitals or any other doctor to prove that there is a negligence on the part of the doctor in the second defendant hospital to perform the family planning operation to her. More over, the plaintiff did not deny that after underwent family planning operation, the second defendant hospital doctors advised her to visit the hospital after one month for review, but she did not turn up. It is not the case of the plaintiff that after operation in the second defendant hospital, she went on periodical check up in the second defendant hospital or any other hospital, therefore, there is a negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The said negligence cannot be ruled out. 19. As per the evidence of PW2 Mandal Revenue Officer, the father of the plaintiff is having Ac.7.86 cents of land and he had no male issues and he is having two daughters. He further admits that husband of the plaintiff is living as illatom son-in-law in the house of father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, her husband and her father jointly living by cultivating the lands. He further admits that husband of the plaintiff is living as illatom son-in-law in the house of father of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, her husband and her father jointly living by cultivating the lands. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 clearly goes to show about the economic status of the plaintiff. As stated supra, there is a negligence on the part of the plaintiff because she did not underwent periodical checkups after she underwent family planning operation, she also asserted the same. The plaintiff also failed to prove that she underwent family planning operation in the first defendant hospital. Therefore, on appreciation of entire evidence on record the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit. I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered against the appellant. 20. 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. 21. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed confirming the decree and Judgment dated 01.08.2007, in O.S.No.55 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Appeal shall stand closed.