LI Network
Published on: November 30, 2023 at 15:30 IST
The Kerala High Court has rejected the compensation plea of a 39-year-old woman who claimed to have conceived and delivered her fifth child despite undergoing Post Partum Sterilization (PPS) surgery due to the alleged negligence of the doctor who performed the procedure.
Justice CS Sudha, after considering various legal precedents and medical opinions acknowledging the possibility of pregnancy after PPS surgery in exceptional cases, noted that the woman had given birth nearly five years after the surgery.
The court stated that if the surgery had indeed failed, as claimed by the appellant, she would have conceived much earlier. The time gap between the surgery and conception suggested that the pregnancy might have occurred due to natural causes rather than negligence on the part of the doctor.
The appellant, from a financially disadvantaged family with four children, had undergone PPS surgery based on the doctor’s recommendation at a Government Hospital. Alleging negligence in the surgery, she sought Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental agony, pain, suffering, and associated expenses.
The doctor, defendant No.2, contended that he was a qualified and experienced gynecologist and that the appellant’s case represented the first reported failure among numerous sterilization surgeries he had performed. He denied negligence and emphasized the care and caution exercised during the surgery.
The doctor also informed the court about the rare possibility of failures in sterilization surgeries, noting that the appellant had been made aware of this before the procedure.
The court, referencing legal precedents such as State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (2005) and State of Kerala v. P.G. Kumari Amma (2011), examined the negligence of medical professionals.
It emphasized that the cause of action for compensation in cases of failed sterilization surgery arises from the surgeon’s negligence, not childbirth.
The court found that the appellant had failed to prima facie prove negligence and carelessness on the part of the doctor. The court also noted that there was no case against the doctor’s skill and competence.
Justice Sudha dismissed the appeal, stating that, considering the lack of evidence of negligence on the doctor’s part, the claim for damages could not succeed.
The court concluded that there was no vicarious liability for the employer (1st defendant), and it found no grounds for interference with the trial court’s findings.
Case Title: XXX v. District Collector & Ors., RFA NO. 9 OF 2003-A