'Not Informed About Risk Of Failure, Led To Birth Of Sixth Child': P&H High Court Upholds Compensation For Failed Sterilisation

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld a compensation of ₹20,000 awarded to a woman for a failed sterilisation procedure, observing that she had not been informed about the possibility of failure, which ultimately led to the birth of her sixth child.Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan said, “The consent of the respondent-plaintiff (woman) should have been obtained after giving information about the pros and cons of the said operation and this fact should have been clearly informed to the respondent-plaintiff that there are chances of failure of the said operation to the extent of 0.3%.”However, the Court noted that the advertisement was published to “attract public for the said operation by stating that such operations are successful and there are no chances of conception, which indicates that the consent obtained from the woman was merely an eye-wash and it was not an informed consent.”The plea was filed by Punjab Government and the Director Health Punjab challenging the order of Civil Judge, whereby, the appellant-defendant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000, to a woman, towards maintenance of her child in 1999 and order, passed by the the Additional District Judge in 2000, whereby, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed.BackgroundThe suit for recovery of Rs.2 lakh as damages and compensation against the appellants was filed by the aggrieved woman against the Punjab Government and its authorities, for their alleged negligent act in conducting the Tubectomy operation upon the plaintiff, which was found to be ineffective and unsuccessful. It was contended that the woman was married and had five children. She was induced by the staff of the appellant-Department and agreed to undergo the Tubectomy operation, as the civil hospital authorities offered attractive rewards and assured her with a guarantee that, after the operation, there would be no possibility of future conception. The woman submitted that she was assured by the Hospital authorities that she would never conceive and thereafter, she could enjoy her sexual life without any fear and without the use of artificial contraceptives or pills. However, on July 03, 1990, it was discovered that the plaintiff was pregnant, and she subsequently delivered a girl child on December 17, 1990. Prior to the delivery, the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the defendants-appellants, but no reply was received. The plaintiff incurred expenses related to the delivery and has been bearing the ongoing expenses for the upbringing of the child. It is further stated that her health also deteriorated as a result, the plea added.After examining the submissions, the Civil Judge considering the fact that the child was the sixth in the plaintiff's family, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The defendants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 towards the maintenance, education, and future marriage expenses of the plaintiff's child.The order was challenged in the District Court and the same was dismissed. The Appellate Court observed that, had the plaintiff not undergone the said operation, she would have resorted to precautionary measures, such as using contraceptive pills, to avoid further pregnancy.However, since she was assured that no pregnancy would occur after the said operation, she did not adopt any further precautionary measures, it added.The High Court noted that the admission of the Doctor, that the advertisement clearly stated that family planning operations are successful and there are no chances of conception. “The said admission has been rightly considered and taken note of by the trial Court and on the basis of the said admission, the First Appellate Court has rightly held and confirmed the findings that there was negligence on the part of the appellants-defendants,” the Court added.Justice Jeewan also pointed out that the First Appellate Court has considered the cross-examination of the witness (Doctor) and rightly observed that the witness was not aware as to who had filled the consent. He also admitted that the signatures of the plaintiff were not obtained in his presence, and that there were cuttings in the said form. The said cuttings were not attested by any person.In the light of the above, the Court opined that the First Appellate Court has duly considered both the factual and legal aspects of the matter and the findings recorded therein do not suffer from any illegality.Mr. Balwinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the respondentTitle: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS v. XXX

'Not Informed About Risk Of Failure, Led To Birth Of Sixth Child': P&H High Court Upholds Compensation For Failed Sterilisation

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags