Read Time: 06 minutes
The court noted that the woman had signed a consent form before the operation, acknowledging the possibility of failure and agreeing not to hold medical authorities accountable
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that medical negligence cannot be presumed solely because a surgical procedure failed to achieve the desired outcome. Setting aside a first appellate court's order, the High Court restored the trial court’s judgment dismissing a woman's plea for compensation after becoming pregnant post-sterilization.
The court, presided over by Justice Anil Kshetarpal, noted, “The medical negligence cannot be assumed only because a surgical procedure has failed to achieve the desired result.” Relying on the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, the court underscored that “in absence of allegation that the Surgeon was not competent to perform the surgery or the Surgeon was negligent, the suit for damages cannot be decreed.”
The court’s observation came while hearing a suit filed by the respondent, a woman who underwent sterilization surgery, seeking ₹90,000 in compensation with 18% annual interest, alleging medical negligence after giving birth to a child. The trial court dismissed her claim, finding no evidence of negligence by the operating surgeon. The woman admitted during proceedings that she had signed a consent form acknowledging the potential failure of the operation and agreeing not to hold the medical authorities liable.The operating surgeon, Dr. Hardeep Sharma testified that no guarantees were provided about the procedure’s success, and the patient was informed of its possible failure. The trial court concluded that the surgery was performed by a qualified and experienced professional, and no negligence was established. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, awarding ₹30,000 with 6% interest annually. The appellate court reasoned that sterilization should ensure no further pregnancies and criticised the state for not conducting follow-up assessments to confirm the operation’s success.
The state, represented by Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok, cited the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and Others (2005), arguing that the surgeon or employer cannot be held liable for an unwanted pregnancy unless concrete evidence proves negligence in performing the procedure.
The court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasised that negligence cannot be assumed merely because the surgery failed. The court reiterated that liability in medical negligence cases requires positive evidence, including expert opinions when appropriate. The court found the appellate court’s presumption of negligence unsustainable, as it was not backed by factual evidence.
The court further noted that the respondent had signed a consent form explicitly stating that sterilization might not yield the desired result and absolving the medical authorities of liability in case of failure.
The trial court’s findings, thus, were upheld and the appellate court's order awarding ₹30,000 in compensation was overturned.
Cause Title: Punjab State and others v X [RSA-4214-2002 (O&M)]
Appearances: Mr. Salil Sabhlok, Sr. DAG, Punjab.; Ms. Simran, Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.
Please Login or Register
