Rare Failure: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Compensation To Couple Enduring Unwanted Childbirth On Unsuccessful Vasectomy Operation

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while denying compensation to a couple enduring unwanted childbirth as a result of unsuccessful vasectomy operation observed that it is a rare failure.

The Court was considering an Appeal filed by the State Government against the order of the Trial Court whereby it allowed the Appeal of the Plaintiff- Couple.

The single bench of Justice Nidhi Gupta observed, "...No doubt, the said vasectomy of Ram Singh was unsuccessful however, learned lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the fact that it was not denied by the plaintiffs that Dr. R.K. Goel had performed thousands of such operations. The statistics reveal that chances of failure of vasectomy is rare with rates ranging from 0.3% to 9%. The plaintiffs fell in that rare bracket. This would not imply any negligence on part of defendant No.4. Learned lower Appellate Court has also not considered that prior to the operation, as per the certificate issued to the plaintiffs, it was made clear that in case of failure of operation, there was no liability upon the defendants."

The Appellant was represented by Additional Advocate General Dushyant Saharan while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Rajwant Kaushish.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiffs are Husband and Wife who had filed two separate suits for recovery of ₹2 lakh from the State. It was their pleaded case that in 1986, as part of their family planning operation had their vasectomy operation done by Defendant No.4. The Plaintiffs were cautioned to abstain from intercourse for three months which as per claims they abided to. It was thus their grievance that despite observing due care and caution; the Plaintiff- wife got pregnant and when the Plaintiff-husband took a test at the hospital, he was informed the the vasectomy operation had failed. Accordingly, they gave birth to their 5th child/ 4th daughter who was unwanted and unwelcomed addition to their family. It was pleaded that the Plaintiffs had undergone mental shock as well as immense physical torture due to the negligent act of the Defendants. Accordingly, damages of ₹2 lakh were sought.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Plaintiff had offered his willingness to undergo the vasectomy which was subject to an undertaking that in case operation failed, the Defendant will not be responsible for the same and therefore no liability can be fastened upon them. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Civil Hospital & Others Vs. Manjit Singh & Another” and “State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Others”.

Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand argued that when a vasectomy operation fails, and the wife is impregnated, it stigmatizes the wife and ostracizes her from society. It was submitted that in a society like India, questions are raised regarding the character of the wife, as to how despite the vasectomy operation, she became pregnant. It was thus averred that the Plaintiffs had gone through agony.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset noted that the Plaintiff-Husband failed to take precautions as they failed to produce any proof that there was no carelessness on their part. It was further stated that though it was termed as unwarranted, however, there was no viable reason given as to why the said pregnancy was not terminated.

The Court concluded that it was a rare failure on part of the doctor and therefore liability cannot be fastened on the government.

The Appeal was accordingly rejected.

Cause Title: The State of Haryana & Others vs. Ram Singh & Another (2025:PHHC:048902)

Appearances:

Appellant- Additional Advocate General Dushyant Saharan

Respondent- Advocate Rajwant Kaushish, Advocate Deep Inder Singh Walia

Click here to read/ download Order