Wife Got Pregnant After Husband's Vasectomy At Govt Health Centre: P&H HC Set Aside Order Granting Compensation, Says State Not Liable For Failure

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has set aside the compensation granted to a couple for the failure of a vasectomy operation, as a result of which the woman conceived and gave birth to a girl child.

In a move to control the fast-rising population of India, vasectomy operations were incentivised by the Haryana government in 1986 by offering payment.

Justice Nidhi Gupta while allowing the State Government's appeal against trial court order granting Rs 1 lakh compensation to the couple,  the Court said, "No doubt, the said vasectomy of Ram Singh was unsuccessful however, learned lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the fact that it was not denied by the plaintiffs that Dr. R.K. Goel had performed thousands of such operations. 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."

The Court added that the same would not imply any negligence on part of doctor and the lower Appellate Court has also not considered that prior to the operation, as per the certificate issued to the couple, it was made clear that in case of failure of operation, there was no liability upon the defendants.

In 1986 Ram Singh filed an application at a Government Health Centre for undergoing vasectomy, he was operated for family planning and for undergoing the operation, Singh was paid money.

Singh was categorically, instructed not to indulge in intercourse for next three months and was asked to use condom, and after three months to get a semen check-up. 

It was submitted that, Singh's wife got pregnant and then he went to the Civil Hospital and got himself checked and he was informed that the vasectomy operation had failed. Accordingly, they gave birth to their 5th child and 4th daughter "who was unwanted and unwelcome addition to their family."

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "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 aforesaid directions of the Doctor that is plaintiff Ram Singh had got his semen checkup done three months after the operation."

The Court pointed that there is no proof that Singh had visited the Civil Hospital three months after the operation for his semen testing.

Justice Gupta highlighted that another factor that requires consideration is that it has been stated by the plaintiffs that it was an unwanted pregnancy, however, there is no viable reason given as to why the said pregnancy was not terminated by the woman.

"Record reveals that it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Sharda Rani was unable to terminate the pregnancy as she was weak. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs to prove the said contention. Even Sharda Rani never attempted to get the pregnancy removed," it added.

The bench found that there is no record to prove the contention that Singh's wife was not fit for undergoing medical termination of pregnancy.

The judge opined that Appellate Court has only noted that the vasectomy operation was performed on 09.08.1986; and the 5th child was born on 02.07.1988 i.e. about 2 years after the operation; and that Dr. R.K. Goel has admitted that this vasectomy operation of Ram Singh was unsuccessful but failed to look into above aspects.

In the light of the above, the Haryana Government's appeal was allowed and order granting the compensation was set aside.

 Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG Haryana.

Mr. Rajwant Kaushish, Advocate for the respondent.

Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advocate for pro-forma respondent.

Title: The State of Haryana & Others v. Ram Singh & Another

Click here to read/download the order