2005 JTR(SC) 1096
2005 ACJ 2116 ; 2005 35 AIC 129 ; 2005 4 AICLR 466 ; 2005 AIR(SC) 3279 ; 2005 AIR(SCW) 4126 ; 2005 61 AllLR 463 ; 2005 4 BBCJ(SC) 193 ; 2005 6 BomCR(SC) 927 ; 2006 1 CalLJ(SC) 25 ; 2006 1 CivCC 136 ; 2008 1 CivCC 136 ; 2005 4 CPJ(SC) 28 ; 2005 4 CTC 703 ; 2005 2 CurLJ 530 ; 2005 4 ICC 751 ; 2005 4 JCR(SC) 227 ; 2005 4 JLJR(SC) 38 ; 2005 8 JT 56 ; 2005 4 MLJ 131 ; 2005 4 PLJR(SC) 69 ; 2005 3 PLR(SC) 795 ; 2005 4 RCR(Civ) 169 ; 2005 4 RCR(Cri) 175 ; 2005 7 Scale 1 ; 2005 7 SCC 22 ; 2005 6 SCJ 546 ; 2005 Supp2 SCR 1027 ; 2005 2 WLC 542 ; 2005 6 Supreme 56
2005(6) Supreme 56
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
R.C. Lahoti, CJI, G.P. Mathur & P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.
State of Haryana and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Raj Rani —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2743 of 2002
With
C.A.No. 1359 of 2005
C.A.No. 5316 of 2005 (@ SLP (C) No. 3106/2004)
C.A.No. 5312 of 2003
C.A.No. 6272 of 2003
C.A.No. 6417 of 2002
Decided on 29-8-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ajay Siwach, T.V. George and Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni and Mrs. K. Sharda Devi, Advocates.
Important point
Child birth inspite of sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of doctor in performance of operation or due to certain natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation and doctor could be held liable only where failure of operation was attributable to his negligence.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136
MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT : S.3
(A) The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act provisions read alongside the constitutional mandate of Article 136 governing special leave petitions are engaged where a state seeks to resolve vicarious liability for medical negligence in sterilization procedures. The Acts framework for medical accountability intersects with Article 136 as the appellate pathway, defining the scope of judicial review on questions of law concerning professional negligence and state liability.
(B) Key principles include: sterilization failure may result from natural causes or surgical negligence; liability attaches only upon proof of negligence; absent negligence, neither the surgeon nor the state incurs liability; and prior decrees must yield where legal principles preclude compensation. The states ex gratia payments do not constitute admission of liability.
Facts of the case:
Women underwent sterilization surgeries performed by state-employed surgeons, yet later became pregnant and delivered children. They filed suits seeking compensation for unwanted pregnancy and child, impleading the state under vicarious liability. The decrees were challenged via special leave.
Findings of Court:
The 3-Judge Bench established that sterilization failure can arise naturally or negligently; compensation requires proof of negligence. No negligence was proven here, and vicarious liability did not attach. The appeals succeeded, and prior decrees were set aside.
Issues:
Whether sterilization failure automatically implies negligence; whether the state is vicariously liable for such negligence; and whether decrees based on liability without proof can stand.
Ratio Decidendi:
Liability for surgical failure arises solely from negligence; without evidence of negligence, neither the surgeon nor the state is liable, and appeals succeeding set aside decrees without ordering restitution for ex gratia payments.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the decrees are set aside, the suits are dismissed, and no costs are awarded, while prior payments remain ex gratia.
(A) The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act provisions read alongside the constitutional mandate of Article 136 governing special leave petitions are engaged where a state seeks to resolve vicarious liability for medical negligence in sterilization procedures. The Acts framework for medical accountability intersects with Article 136 as the appellate pathway, defining the scope of judicial review on questions of law concerning professional negligence and state liability.
(B) Key principles include: sterilization failure may result from natural causes or surgical negligence; liability attaches only upon proof of negligence; absent negligence, neither the surgeon nor the state incurs liability; and prior decrees must yield where legal principles preclude compensation. The states ex gratia payments do not constitute admission of liability.
Facts of the case:
Women underwent sterilization surgeries performed by state-employed surgeons, yet later became pregnant and delivered children. They filed suits seeking compensation for unwanted pregnancy and child, impleading the state under vicarious liability. The decrees were challenged via special leave.
Findings of Court:
The 3-Judge Bench established that sterilization failure can arise naturally or negligently; compensation requires proof of negligence. No negligence was proven here, and vicarious liability did not attach. The appeals succeeded, and prior decrees were set aside.
Issues:
Whether sterilization failure automatically implies negligence; whether the state is vicariously liable for such negligence; and whether decrees based on liability without proof can stand.
Ratio Decidendi:
Liability for surgical failure arises solely from negligence; without evidence of negligence, neither the surgeon nor the state is liable, and appeals succeeding set aside decrees without ordering restitution for ex gratia payments.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the decrees are set aside, the suits are dismissed, and no costs are awarded, while prior payments remain ex gratia.
Judgment
R.C. Lahoti, CJI.—Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 3106/2004.
2. In all these appeals, it is not necessary to notice the facts of individual cases. It would suffice to state that in all these cases, the plaintiff, a woman, had undergone a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon in the employment of the State of Haryana. Subsequent to the performance of the surgery, the woman became pregnant and delivered a child. Suit was filed against the doctor who had performed the surgery, claiming compensation based on the cause of action of ‘unwanted pregnancy’ and ‘unwanted child’, attributable to the failure of the surgery. State of Haryana was impleaded, claiming decree against it on the principle of vicarious liability. The suits have been declared and such decrees have been put in issue by filing these appeals by special leave.
3. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors. (C.A. 5128 of 2002 decided on August 25, 2005) that child birth in spite of a sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in performance of the operation, or due to certain natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise. Several textbooks on medical negligence have recognized the percentage of failure of the sterilization operation due to natural causes to be varying between 0.3% to 7% depending on the techniques or method chosen for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognized by medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons de hors any negligence of the surgeon. In the absence of proof of negligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of the State being held vicariously liable and would not arise. The decrees cannot, therefore, be upheld.
4. However, the learned counsel for the appellant-State stated at the very outset that the plaintiffs in all these cases are poor persons and the State was not interested in depriving the decree-holders of the payment made in satisfaction of the decree but the State was certainly interested in having the question of law settled. The stand taken by the appellant-State has been that in spite of the decrees under appeal having been set aside, any payment already made thereunder would be treated by the State as ex gratia payment.
5. In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors., (supra) all these appeals are allowed. The judgments and decrees under appeals are set aside. All the suits filed by the plaintiffs-respondents are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout. However, any amount paid by the appellant-State to the plaintiffs-decree holders shall not be liable to be refunded by way of restitution.
Appeal allowed.