Punjab & Haryana HC denies relief to woman who got pregnant after sterilization

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order of the first appellate court awarding compensation of Rs 30,000 (plus interest) to a woman who became pregnant after a sterilization operation.

While doing so, the high court noted that before the surgery the woman was informed that sometimes the operation may fail for which no medical authority will be held responsible and that she had signed a form stating the same. The high court thus restored the trial court’s order that had dismissed the woman’s plea after noting that she had not proven medical negligence on the part of the doctor.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal In his order he said: “Medical malpractice cannot be assumed solely because a surgical procedure did not achieve the desired result. The Supreme Court has held that in the absence of an allegation that the Surgeon was not competent to perform the surgery or the Surgeon was negligent, a claim for damages cannot be declared.“.

The court noted that no medical evidence has been presented to prove the surgeon’s negligence and the woman admitted that she signed the form stipulating that the sterilization operation could not give the desired result.

These observations were made during the hearing of the State’s appeal challenging the order of the First Appellate Court awarding Rs 30,000 as compensation along with interest at 6% per annum to the woman for becoming pregnant after her sterilization operation. .

The Court of First Instance considered that the plaintiff-defendant gave birth to a girl after the sterilization operation, however, it could not prove negligence of the Doctor. The woman, when appearing as a witness, admitted that she went to the hospital to verify her “free will” and before performing the operation she filled out a form that bears her signatures. The form stated that it will not hold any doctor responsible for the failure of the operation.

The operation was performed by a well-qualified and experienced surgeon; The Court of First Instance subsequently dismissed the plea.

However, the First Court of Appeals overturned the ruling, assuming that after the sterilization operation, the defendant woman will not conceive another child.

The Court of Appeals further held that the State did not assert that the defendant was ever called to follow up to see if the operation was successful or not. Therefore, the First Appellate Court awarded Rs. 30,000 along with an interest of 6% per annum for the woman.

Before the high court, the appellant State held that the Operating Surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation for unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child due to failure in the sterilization operation in the absence of evidence showing that there was negligence on the part of of the Surgeon when performing the surgery.

At the request of the high court, the woman’s lawyer admitted that no medical evidence has been presented to prove the surgeon’s negligence. The defendant admitted that she signed the form stipulating that the sterilization operation might not give the desired result.

After considering the submissions, the High Court opined that to award compensation in cases involving medical negligence, the woman must present positive evidence, including expert opinion in appropriate cases.

Justice Kshetarpal observed that the First Appellate Court has assumed negligence only on the basis of a presumption.

“From a reading of the judgment passed by the trial Court, it appears that the Operating Doctor, Sh. Hardeep Sharma appeared as DW1 and submitted that no assurance was given to the respondent about the success of the operation and she was informed that sometimes the operation fails for which no medical authority will be held responsible.“added the Court.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the first appellate court granting compensation. The high court also restored the trial court’s order.

Case Title: State of Punjab and Others v. XXXX

Lawyers appearing for the State: Mr. DAG Punjab, Salil Sabhlok,

Counsel appearing for the respondent: Advocate Simran appearing for Advocate Pardeep Goyal

Click here to read/download the order