In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an earlier decision that granted ₹1 lakh as compensation to a couple after the husband’s vasectomy operation failed and the wife became pregnant. The Court ruled that the State cannot be held liable without concrete proof of negligence by the medical authorities involved.
The appeals, filed by the State of Haryana, were directed against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on 15th June 2001. These appeals challenged the compensation awarded to Ram Singh and his wife, Sharda Rani, after the birth of their fifth child despite Ram Singh undergoing a vasectomy at a Government Health Centre in 1986.
Background of the Case
Ram Singh and Sharda Rani, a married couple since 1977, had four children by 1986 and decided to opt for a family planning measure. On 9th August 1986, Ram Singh underwent a vasectomy procedure at the Primary Health Centre in Pehowa, performed by Dr. R.K. Goel. He received a certificate confirming the procedure and was paid an incentive under a government population control scheme.
Following the surgery, Singh was strictly advised to:
- Abstain from sexual intercourse for three months,
- Use contraceptives like condoms during that period,
- Get a semen test done after three months to confirm the success of the vasectomy.
However, despite these instructions, Sharda Rani became pregnant. Singh later visited the Civil Hospital, where he was informed that the vasectomy had failed. Subsequently, they gave birth to a fifth child, a fourth daughter, whom they described as an "unwanted and unwelcome addition" to the family.
The couple then filed two separate suits seeking ₹2 lakh in damages, alleging negligence on the part of the doctors and the government. Although their initial suit was dismissed by the trial court, the Additional District Judge allowed their appeal in 2001 and granted them ₹1 lakh in compensation, which was now challenged before the High Court.
Justice Nidhi Gupta, who presided over the appeal, meticulously reviewed the case and overturned the lower appellate court’s decision, providing several key observations:
“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 Court emphasized that the mere failure of the operation does not imply negligence. Statistical data show that vasectomy failure rates range from 0.3% to 9%, and the plaintiffs fell within that rare bracket. The Court further clarified that the plaintiffs had signed a certificate acknowledging that the government would not be held responsible if the operation failed.
Another critical factor was the lack of compliance with medical advice post-surgery. The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence to show that Ram Singh had gone for the prescribed semen analysis three months after the operation. Despite being repeatedly questioned by the Court, the plaintiffs’ counsel could not provide a convincing answer on this front.
"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.”
The Court also noted that although the couple claimed the pregnancy was unwanted, they did not take steps to medically terminate it.
“Even Sharda Rani never attempted to get the pregnancy removed. There is no medical evidence to support the claim that she was too weak to undergo the procedure.”
Furthermore, the doctor in question, Dr. R.K. Goel, was a trained surgeon who had successfully performed thousands of vasectomies, and no evidence of negligence was presented against him.
The respondents had relied on earlier Supreme Court rulings, including State of Haryana v. Santra, to argue for compensation. However, the High Court clarified that those cases involved clear instances of negligence, such as only one fallopian tube being operated on during a sterilization procedure meant to be complete.
“The case is clearly distinguishable and cannot be said to be laying down any law of universal application... In the present case, no negligence has been proved.”
The Court also referred to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, highlighting that pregnancy caused due to failure of contraception can be a ground for termination, but the plaintiffs failed to utilize this legal provision.
After reviewing all records and legal precedents, the High Court ruled:
“The judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, in both appeals filed by the plaintiffs are set aside.”
As a result, the ₹1 lakh compensation granted to the couple was withdrawn, and no liability was affixed on the State.
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
