The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench, comprising Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Shree Prakash Singh, delivered a significant judgment on August 8, 2024, in the case of Manju Devi vs. Union of India & Ors (Writ-C No. 6729 of 2024). The case centered around a compensation claim filed by the petitioner, Manju Devi, following the birth of her fifth child despite undergoing a sterilization procedure.
Background of the Case
Manju Devi, a resident of Sitapur district, had undergone a vasectomy (sterilization) operation on August 26, 2019, at the Community Health Centre in Machrehta, Sitapur. With four children already, she opted for the procedure believing it would prevent further pregnancies. However, she gave birth to a fifth child, a girl, on November 30, 2021.
Subsequently, Manju Devi filed a compensation claim under the Pariwar Niyojan Indemnity Scheme, a program by the National Health Mission that provides financial relief in cases where sterilization operations fail. Her claim was not processed, leading her to seek legal intervention.
Legal Issues Involved
The core legal issue in the case was whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation under the Pariwar Niyojan Indemnity Scheme due to the failure of the sterilization procedure. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the failure had directly led to the birth of an additional child, causing financial and emotional burdens. They contended that the authorities had not diligently processed her claim.
The respondents defended the state authorities, stating that the petitioner’s application was rejected initially due to missing documentation. They emphasized that the petitioner had not fulfilled all necessary requirements for the claim to be processed.
Court’s Decision
After hearing both sides, the court issued a directive to the Superintendent of the Community Health Centre in Machrehta, Sitapur. The court ordered that all necessary documents related to the petitioner’s claim be completed and resubmitted to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) of Sitapur within three weeks. The CMO was instructed to examine the claim thoroughly and forward it to the Competent Authority within four weeks thereafter.
In a significant observation, the court remarked, “The petitioner’s right to seek compensation under the scheme should not be denied due to administrative lapses.”
In conclusion, the judgment in the case of Manju Devi vs. Union of India & Ors highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals are not deprived of their entitlements due to administrative inefficiencies. The court’s decision to uphold the petitioner’s right to seek compensation sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It underscores the need for a fair and efficient process in handling claims under government schemes, especially those aimed at providing financial relief to vulnerable individuals.