Failed Sterilisation Alone Can't Prove Doctor's Negligence: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Gwalior bench has recently dismissed a woman's decade-old appeal seeking compensation for an alleged failed sterilisation operation, holding that a pregnancy discovered after such a surgery does not by itself establish medical negligence unless there is positive evidence that the doctors failed to exercise reasonable skill and care.

Justice Ashish Shroti was hearing the appeal filed by Lady Kishwar against a 2006 judgment of the Fourth Additional District Judge, Shivpuri, which had earlier dismissed her suit for damages against the State of Madhya Pradesh and the doctors who had performed her sterilisation.

According to the case, the appellant, who described herself as belonging to a financially weak background with a labourer husband and five children, underwent a sterilisation operation at the District Hospital, Shivpuri, on March 17, 2004, after undergoing the required pre-operative tests. About one to two months later, she developed stomach pain and consulted the same doctor several times without relief. She eventually approached another doctor at the same hospital, who advised an ultrasound.

The report, dated July 4, 2004, revealed that she was pregnant. When she returned to the doctors who had performed her operation, she alleged she was accused of having concealed her pregnancy at the time of the surgery, rather than being properly treated. She gave birth to her sixth child, a daughter, on October 25, 2004, and later filed a complaint with the Shivpuri Collector, which she claimed was closed without proper inquiry. Her civil suit, seeking compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh, was filed in December 2005 and dismissed by the trial court in March 2006.

Before the High Court, her counsel, Sunil Kumar Jain, argued that the pregnancy resulted from a failed sterilisation operation and that had she genuinely been pregnant at the time of surgery, the pre-operative tests would have detected it. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Haryana v. Smt. Santra, where compensation was awarded for a botched sterilisation.

Government Advocate Rajendra Jain, appearing for the State, countered that a mere failure of the operation could not by itself amount to medical negligence, particularly since the pathological tests conducted before the surgery had not detected the pregnancy.

Examining the evidence, the Court noted that both the appellant's own witnesses, including the doctor who conducted the sonography, had testified that she had a pregnancy of about 22 weeks as on July 4, 2004. Calculated backwards, this placed the date of conception before the date of the sterilisation operation. The birth of her child on October 25, 2004, independently pointed to the same conclusion.

Relying on the Supreme Court's later decision in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram, the Court held that mere failure of a sterilisation operation resulting in an unwanted pregnancy does not, by itself, make the surgeon liable. The judgment quoted the Apex Court's observation that "the claim in tort can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery. The proof of negligence shall have to satisfy Bolam's test," adding that a surgeon cannot ordinarily be held liable in contract either, absent an assured guarantee against pregnancy.

The Court distinguished the Santra judgment cited by the appellant, noting that in that case only one fallopian tube had been operated upon despite the woman consenting to complete sterilisation, whereas no such lapse was alleged or found here.

On the appellant's separate allegation that the doctors had suppressed her pregnancy at the time of the operation, the Court held that since the pathological tests, conducted by someone not even a party to the suit, had failed to detect the pregnancy, the doctors could not be blamed for not disclosing something they had no means of knowing.

Holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the facts, the High Court upheld the 2006 judgment and dismissed the appeal, directing parties to bear their own costs.

Case Title: Lady Kishwar v. State of M.P and Others

Date of Judgment: September 16, 2026

Bench: Justice Ashish Shroti

Tags: