Wife Got Pregnant After Husband’s Vasectomy at Govt Health Centre: Punjab & Haryana HC Sets Aside Compensation ; State Not Liable for Failure
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Single Bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta, set aside a compensation award previously granted to a couple following the failure of a vasectomy operation. The Court stated that failure of such a procedure alone does not imply medical negligence in the absence of evidence demonstrating breach of medical duty.
The Court was adjudicating second appeals filed by the State of Haryana and others challenging the judgment and decree dated June 15, 2001, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. The appeals arose from suits filed by Ram Singh and his wife who sought compensation for an unwanted childbirth despite the vasectomy performed on the husband.
The plaintiffs, Ram Singh and his wife filed Civil Suit Nos. 53 and 356, dated May 6, 1993, and May 24, 1990 respectively, seeking damages of Rs. 2 lakhs. They alleged that the vasectomy performed on Ram Singh on August 9, 1986, by Dr. R.K. Goel at the Primary Health Centre, Pehowa, failed despite adherence to post-operative guidelines. The couple contended that the failure led to the birth of their fifth child, which they described as an unwanted addition to their family.
It was pleaded that Ram Singh had abstained from intercourse for the prescribed three-month period post-surgery and only resumed cohabitation thereafter. Upon his wife becoming pregnant, a subsequent medical consultation revealed that the vasectomy had failed. The plaintiffs alleged that they suffered mental shock and physical hardship as a result.
The suits were initially dismissed by the trial court via a common judgment and decree dated September 11, 1997. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, reversed the decision, granting compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 with 6% interest per annum from the date of birth of the child (July 2, 1988) till realization.
The State of Haryana filed second appeals RSA-3889-2001(O&M) and RSA-3890-2001(O&M) challenging the appellate court's decision. The appellants argued that the plaintiffs failed to establish negligence and that the judgment was based on conjecture.
It was contended by the appellants that the operation was part of a government incentivised scheme for population control, and Ram Singh had voluntarily consented to the procedure, acknowledging the possibility of failure. They relied on medical records (Mark-A, Mark-B, Mark-C) and the testimony of Dr. R.K. Goel (DW1), who stated that necessary precautions, including abstinence and semen analysis post three months, were clearly communicated to the plaintiff.
Justice Nidhi Gupta recorded, "The plaintiffs have failed to produce any proof that there was no carelessness on their part and/or that they had complied with the aforesaid directions of the Doctor that is plaintiff Ram Singh had got his semen checkup done three months after the operation."
The Court noted that although the plaintiff claimed to have visited the Civil Hospital for semen testing, no documentation was furnished to substantiate this claim. Additionally, it was not disputed that the medical certificate issued prior to the operation clearly stated that in case of failure, no liability would lie with the doctor or hospital.
Regarding the argument that the birth led to social stigma and mental distress, the Court observed that no evidence was led to show that his wife was medically unfit to terminate the pregnancy. The Court noted, "Even his wife never attempted to get the pregnancy removed." Further, the Court recorded that medical witnesses such as Dr. Sudha Gupta (PW4) did not corroborate the claim of physical weakness or inability to undergo termination.
The Court relied on precedent, stating, "Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy."
The judgment distinguished the Supreme Court judgement in State of Haryana v. Santra, 2000 (5) SCC 182, on the ground that it involved incomplete sterilisation, whereas in the present case, the vasectomy had been properly performed by an experienced surgeon.
Setting aside the lower appellate court's decree, the High Court stated:
"In view of the above factual and legal position, the second appeals are allowed. 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."
The Court also disposed of all pending applications.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Dushyant Saharan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
For the Respondents and Pro-forma Respondent: Mr. Rajwant Kaushish and Mr. Deep Inder Singh Walia, Advocates
Case Title: The State of Haryana & Others Vs. Ram Singh & Another; The State of Haryana & Others Vs. Smt. Sharda Rani & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:048902
Case Number: RSA-3889-2001(O&M); RSA-3890-2001(O&M)
Bench: Justice Nidhi Gupta
[Read/Download order]
