Birth of a Deformed Child After Sterilization Is Not Proof of Negligence – Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal Seeking Compensation

“Unless a Surgeon Guarantees 100% Success, There Is No Presumption of Liability” – Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a pivotal judgment rejecting a plea for compensation of ₹2.4 lakhs on account of the alleged negligence by a government surgeon in performing sterilization that resulted in the birth of a 100% physically deformed child. The Court held that failure of sterilization alone does not amount to medical negligence unless cogent evidence proves otherwise.

Justice Deepak Gupta, dismissing the appeal, observed: “The mere fact of pregnancy and childbirth following a sterilization procedure does not by itself establish negligence or liability on the part of the operating surgeon or the State. Compensation can be awarded only if negligence in performing the surgery is specifically pleaded and proved.”

“Childbirth After Sterilization Cannot, By Itself, Be Considered Medical Negligence” – High Court Relies on Supreme Court Precedents

The Court relied heavily on the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (2005), reiterating that sterilization procedures inherently carry a known failure rate, and unless there is specific evidence showing that the operating surgeon lacked reasonable skill or care, no liability can be fastened on the State.

“Sterilization procedures, including the Pomeroy and Madlener methods, are recognized techniques with failure rates ranging between 0.3% to 7%. Even when competently performed, spontaneous recanalization or other natural causes may result in pregnancy.”

The judgment clarified that: “Liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of childbirth after sterilization. Proof of negligence must satisfy the Bolam test.”

Two Failed Sterilizations, One Deformed Child, and a Legal Battle for Compensation

The appellant Satya Devi, married to Hazara Ram, underwent sterilization on 21 January 1987 at the Primary Health Centre, Bhunga. Despite the operation, she gave birth to a physically deformed daughter, Manjit Devi, on 9 December 1987. This followed an earlier failure—her husband had also undergone sterilization in February 1985, yet she conceived in 1986.

The child born from the second failed sterilization suffered 100% physical deformity, leading the family to file a suit seeking ₹2.4 lakhs as compensation, claiming mental, physical, and financial trauma, and alleging negligence on the part of the government hospital and its surgeon.

However, the Trial Court (1993) and the First Appellate Court (1997) both dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of negligence, and attributed the pregnancy to known procedural failure rates. These findings were now affirmed by the High Court.

“Negligence Must Be Pleaded and Proved – Not Presumed” – Plaintiff Failed to Attribute Fault in Testimony

The Court highlighted that Satya Devi never alleged in her testimony that the surgeon was negligent. In fact, Dr. R.P. Mehangi, who conducted the operation, testified that all proper precautions were taken, and the patient had been explicitly informed of a 2–4 per 1000 failure rate, to which she had consented.

Justice Gupta noted: “There is not a single word in her testimony attributing the failure of sterilization specifically to negligence on the part of the operating surgeon.”

“Unwanted Birth Does Not Create Automatic Right to Damages” – Court Refuses to Recognize Birth of Disabled Child as Sufficient Ground

In a significant legal pronouncement, the Court refused to treat the birth of a deformed child as “ipso facto” evidence of wrongful act or negligence, stating:

“If pregnancy occurs despite sterilization, the couple has recourse to termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971… If the couple chooses to continue with the pregnancy, the child cannot subsequently be termed ‘unwanted’ for purposes of claiming damages.”

This aligns with the principle laid down in Shiv Ram, where the Supreme Court had ruled: “Unless a surgeon guarantees 100% success—which ordinarily is never the case—no contractual liability arises.”

Reliance on “Shiv Ram” and Rejection of Contrary Views

The Court specifically overruled contrary High Court decisions relied upon by the appellant, including:

• Smt. Shobha v. Govt. NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court)

• Fullo Devi v. State of Haryana

• Tmt. Dhanam v. Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department (Madras High Court)

These, the Bench noted, either preceded the Shiv Ram ruling or were rendered without referring to it, and thus were not binding.

No Proof, No Negligence, No Compensation

Holding firmly that there was no material on record to show negligence, and that the couple had been informed and aware of the risk of failure, the Court dismissed the second appeal, stating:

“Applying the settled law in Shiv Ram to the facts of the present case, it is clear that there is no material on record attributing the failure of sterilization to negligence on the part of the operating surgeon.”

“The findings of the Courts below, therefore, suffer from no infirmity. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.”Date of Decision: 26 September 2025