In a significant ruling on medical negligence and liability in family planning procedures, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the compensation awarded to a couple whose fifth child was born despite the husband undergoing a government-facilitated vasectomy. The Court held that failure of a sterilisation operation, without proof of negligence or non-compliance with medical advice, does not entitle a claimant to compensation.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs, Ram Singh and his wife Sharda Rani, filed separate suits seeking ₹2 lakh in damages from the State of Haryana and others, following the birth of their fifth child despite Ram Singh having undergone a vasectomy on 09.08.1986 at the Primary Health Centre, Pehowa. The suits were consolidated and heard jointly. The trial court dismissed both suits through a common judgment dated 11.09.1997.
On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, by judgment dated 15.06.2001, set aside the trial court’s decision and awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation, with 6% interest from the date of birth of the child (02.07.1988) to the date of realisation, payable jointly and severally by the defendants. The State challenged this decision through the present second appeals.
Appellant’s Arguments
The State of Haryana argued that:
- The lower appellate court failed to appreciate the medical evidence and statutory precautions recorded in the certificate (Ex.DY), which clearly advised post-operative precautions, including abstinence and semen analysis after three months.
- The plaintiffs failed to prove compliance with these instructions.
- There was no evidence of negligence by the operating doctor, Dr. R.K. Goel, who had performed thousands of such operations.
- The operation was performed under a voluntary government scheme aimed at population control, and consent included an understanding of potential failure.
The State relied on Supreme Court decisions in State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram & Others and Civil Hospital & Others vs. Manjit Singh & Another to argue that compensation cannot be granted in the absence of proven negligence.
Respondents’ Submissions
The plaintiffs contended that:
- The failure of the vasectomy caused immense emotional and physical distress.
- The pregnancy brought stigma to Sharda Rani, questioning her character in a conservative society.
- The unwanted child imposed an unforeseen financial and emotional burden.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Nidhi Gupta observed:
“The record reveals that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any proof that there was no carelessness on their part and/or that they had complied with the directions of the doctor… there is no proof of semen testing three months after the operation.”
The Court noted that the vasectomy failure alone could not amount to negligence:
“The statistics reveal that chances of failure of vasectomy is rare with rates ranging from 0.3% to 9%. The plaintiffs fell in that rare bracket. This would not imply any negligence on part of defendant No.4.”
On the argument that the wife suffered social stigma:
“The argument… is liable to be rejected… it has been proved that the daughter born after the vasectomy operation was born of the loins of plaintiff Ram Singh.”
The Court also clarified that the reliance placed by the lower appellate court on State of Haryana vs. Santra (2000) was misplaced as it pertained to a partial sterilisation (only one fallopian tube was operated), which was a clear case of negligence — unlike the present case.
Further, citing the Supreme Court in Shiv Ram and other rulings, the Court reiterated:
“Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim… Once the couple gains knowledge of conception despite sterilisation and opts to carry the pregnancy, it ceases to be an unwanted child.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeals filed by the State. The judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, awarding compensation was set aside. The trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ suits was restored.
