The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a Trial Court order refusing medical negligence compensation for an allegedly failed sterilization procedure, noting the woman's pregnancy pre-dated the surgery. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 378]

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti highlighted:

"The learned Trial Court has, therefore, correctly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case while holding that the plaintiff became pregnant prior to her operation on 04.07.2004. Thus, the allegation that plaintiff conceived on account of failure of operation is not established".

The woman claimed that she belonged to a weaker section of society and was financially poor, with no independent source of income. It was claimed that her husband was a labourer and they already had five children. Therefore, she had approached the District Hospital of Shivpuri for a sterilization operation. After performing the necessary tests and completing formalities, Dr. Veena Kumra (defendant no. 4) operated on March 17, 2004.

About a month or two later, the appellant felt stomach pain and visited the hospital for a check-up. She was prescribed certain medicines, but she did not get any relief. Thereafter, she again visited the hospital. She was then advised to undergo an ultrasound, which revealed that she was pregnant. She took the said report of the Ultrasound to defendant no. 4 and alleged that the Hospital failed to treat her properly.

The Hospital accused the woman of not disclosing facts about her pregnancy during her sterilization operation.

The woman contended that all necessary tests were conducted before the operation and therefore the hospital was supposed to know about her pregnancy. However, she claimed that the said fact was not disclosed to her. Thus, she claimed medical negligence against the Hospital and the doctor who operated.

The woman further submitted that she had made a complaint against the Hospital and concerned doctors to the Collector of Shivpuri. The complaint was forwarded to the Chief Medical and Health Officer (defendant no 2) for inquiry. She alleged that the CMHO closed her complaint without proper inquiry.

The hospital, before the Trial Court, denied the woman's claim, arguing that the operation was performed following the protocols and prescribed procedure. It was further argued that the tests performed before the operation did not disclose pregnancy and therefore the Hospital could not have known about the same.

Further, the hospital argued that per the sonography report of July 7, 2004, the woman was pregnant at 18 to 20 weeks. Per their calculations, the woman had conceived on or about March 10, 2004, and that it is not possible to detect a pregnancy of one week by sonography or pathological tests.

The hospital also argued that they had advised the woman to meet the doctors on July 6, 2004, for termination of pregnancy, but, she did not turn up.

Before the Trial Court, the woman stated that she did not know about the pregnancy on the date of the operation. The plaintiff's witness 2, Dr Uma Jain, Assistant Doctor in said Hospital who performed the sonography, claimed that the woman had not disclosed the fact that she had undergone a sterilization operation. She further confirmed that a one-week pregnancy could not be detected by ultrasound; however, it could be detected by a urine test.

CMHO was also examined as the defendant's witness and stated that their inquiry revealed no negligence on the part of the Hospital or the doctor.

Trial Court, after appreciating the facts, held that there was no negligence on the part of the hospital and the concerned doctor in performing the operation.

Before the High Court, the counsel for the woman claimed that she conceived the sixth child due to failure of family planning operation and therefore she was entitled to compensation.

The Government Advocate for the State argued that mere failure of the operation would not be a ground to hold the doctors guilty of medical negligence. It was further argued that since the operation did not fail, no question of medical negligence arises.

The court noted that negligence is covered under "Tort", and that every doctor who enters the medical profession is duty-bound to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill. Referring to the case of State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram [2005], the bench reiterated that mere failure of operation would not be ground to hold the hospital negligent.

The bench highlighted

"For holding them guilty there has to be a positive evidence to show that they did not use a fair, reasonable and competent degree of skill. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, the facts of this case needs to be examined".

Rejecting the contention that the hospital suppressed the fact of her pregnancy, the bench held that since the pregnancy was not detected in tests, the doctors cannot be held guilty of non-disclosure.

The bench further clarified that since the woman was pregnant before the surgery was conducted, it cannot be said that the surgery had failed. Consequently, the court upheld the impugned order and dismissed her appeal.

Case Title: LK v. State of MP, FA-172-2010

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 378

For Appellant: Advocate Sunil Kumar Jain

For State: Government Advocate Rajendra Jain

Click here to read/download the Order