Failure of Vasectomy Does Not Ipso Facto Prove Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Overturns Compensation in Unwanted Birth Case

“The mere failure of a sterilisation procedure, without proof of negligence or breach of standard care, cannot attract liability” - Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided by Justice Nidhi Gupta, delivered a significant ruling in the matters of State of Haryana & Others vs. Ram Singh & Another and State of Haryana & Others vs. Smt. Sharda Rani & Another. The Court set aside a compensation award of ₹1,00,000 granted to a couple following the birth of a child post-vasectomy, holding that “failure of sterilisation alone is not proof of medical negligence.”

The ruling provides important clarity on liability in cases of failed family planning procedures, reinforcing the principle that negligence must be proven—not presumed.

“Statistical failure of vasectomy cannot be equated with professional negligence”

Ram Singh and Sharda Rani, a married couple with four children, opted for family planning. On 09 August 1986, Ram Singh underwent a vasectomy at the Primary Health Centre, Pehowa, conducted by Dr. R.K. Goel, a surgeon in government service. A certificate was issued confirming the operation, and Ram Singh received payment under a government incentive scheme promoting sterilisation.

As per the plaintiffs' claim, they followed all post-surgery precautions, including abstaining from intercourse for three months. Yet, Sharda Rani became pregnant and gave birth to a fifth child on 02 July 1988. Alleging negligence on the part of the medical staff, the couple sought ₹2,00,000 in damages from the State.

Their suit was dismissed by the Trial Court on 11 September 1997, but the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, reversed the decision on 15 June 2001, awarding the couple ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest from the date of birth of the child. The State of Haryana appealed this decision before the High Court.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the unsuccessful vasectomy—without any direct evidence of medical error—could be the basis for awarding compensation.

Arguing for the State, counsel submitted that “failure of vasectomy is a medically acknowledged possibility and cannot be presumed to be a result of negligence.” It was contended that the plaintiff had not only been informed about the risks of failure but was also instructed to abstain from intercourse for a prescribed period and to undergo a semen check—none of which could be substantiated by evidence.

The defence asserted that “the plaintiff was paid an incentive amount after consenting to the procedure and accepting the risk that no liability would arise in the event of failure.”

In response, the plaintiffs argued that “the failure of sterilisation had caused them deep mental agony and social embarrassment, especially to the wife, in a society where such events can stigmatise a woman’s character.” It was claimed that they had followed medical advice but were still subjected to the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy.

Justice Nidhi Gupta observed: “There is no evidence on record to prove that plaintiff Ram Singh had undergone the mandatory semen analysis after three months. Although he stated that he had visited the hospital, there is no document to support this assertion.”

The Court noted that the plaintiffs had been issued a certificate pre-operation that clearly stated the possibility of failure and the absence of liability in such cases.

Referring to expert testimony, the Court recorded: “Dr. R.K. Goel, the operating surgeon, had performed thousands of vasectomy operations and there is nothing on record to suggest that the operation in this case was conducted negligently.”

The Court further cited medical data to note that vasectomy procedures carry a known failure rate between 0.3% to 9%, and remarked: “The plaintiffs fall within that statistically rare bracket. This by itself is insufficient to hold the doctor or the State liable.”

Justice Gupta rejected the comparison with the Supreme Court judgment in State of Haryana vs. Santra, observing that: “The case of Santra was based on facts where only one fallopian tube was operated on, despite the woman consenting to complete sterilisation. That judgment does not lay down a universal rule of liability in all failed sterilisation cases.”

On the issue of social stigma raised by the plaintiffs, the Court remarked: “The paternity of the child is not in dispute. The birth certificate and medical reports establish that the child was born of the loins of plaintiff Ram Singh.”

The Court also underlined that: “Once the woman conceives despite sterilisation, she has the option of medical termination under the MTP Act, 1971. Having opted to carry the child to term, the birth cannot later be termed as unwanted for the purpose of compensation.”

In a detailed and well-reasoned verdict, the Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded: “The learned lower Appellate Court ignored vital evidence, including the express warnings given to the plaintiff and the lack of any proof of follow-up care or semen analysis. In the absence of proven negligence, the State cannot be held liable merely because the procedure failed.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001. The suits filed by Ram Singh and Sharda Rani stood dismissed.

Date of Decision: 08 April 2025