STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus RAJ RANI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1027 · Decided: 29-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
V. 
RAJ RANI 
AUGUST 29, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Torts-Medical negligence-Performance of sterilization operation by 
A 
B 
a surgeon employed by the State Government-Delivery of unwanted child-
Claim petition/or compensation from the State Government on the principle C 
of vicarious liability-Held : In the absence of proof of negligence, 
the Surgeon cannot be held liable-The pregnancy could be for reasons 
de hors any negligence of the Surgeon-Consequently, State cannot be 
held vicariously liable to pay compensation to the victim-However, the 
compensation amount already paid by the State to the ivon1an decree-holder 
not to be refunded 
D 
The respondent, a women, had undergone a sterilization operation 
performed by a surgeon in the employment of the State of Haryana. 
However, the woman became pregnant and delivered_ a child. Suit 
was filed by her against the doctor claiming compensation from the 
State of Haryana on the principle of vicarious liability; The suit and the 
connected suits on the same issue have been decreed. Hence the present 
appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in the case of 
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors. that child birth in spite of• sterilization 
operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in performance of the 
operation, or due to certain natural causes such a spontaneous 
recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the 
failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise. 
Several textbooks on medical negligence have recognized the percentage 
of failure of the sterilization operation due to natural causes to be varying 
between 0.3. % to 7% depending on the techniques or method chosen for 
performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones 
E 
F 
G 
in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may H 
1027 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed 
by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognized by 
medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons de hors any 
negligence of the surgeon. In the absence of proof of negligence, the 
surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of 
B the State being held vicariously liable also would not arise. The decrees 
cannot, therefore, be upheld. [1029-B, C, DJ 
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors. decided by the Supreme Court on 
August 25, 2005, relied on. 
C 
1.2. However amount, if any, paid by the appellant-State to the 
D 
E 
plaintiffs-decree holders shall not be liable to be refunded by way of 
restitution. [ 1029-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2743 of2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2001 of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 4322 of 2000. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 6417/2002, 5312, 6272/2003, C.A. Nos. 5316 and 1359 of 
2005. 
Ajay Siwach, T.V. George and Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Jyotika Kalra, 
Bhaskar, Y. Kulkarni and Mrs. K. Sharda Devi for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. : Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 3106/2004. 
In all these appeals, it is not necessary to notice the facts of individual 
cases. It would suffice to state that in all these cases, the plaintiff, a woman, 
G had undergone a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon in the 
employment of the State of Haryana. Subsequent to the performance of the 
surgery, the woman became pregnant and delivered a child. Suit was filed 
against the doctor who had performed the surgery, claiming compensation 
based on the cause of action of 'unwanted pregnancy' and 'unwanted child', 
H attributable to the failure of the surgery. State of Haryana was impleaded, 
STATE v. RAJ RANI [LAHOTI, CJ.] 
1029 
claiming decree against it on the principle of vicarious liability. The suits have A 
been decreed and such decrees have been put in issue by filing these appeals 
by special leave. 
A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram 
& Ors. (C.A. 5128 of2002 decided on August 25, 2005) that child birth in 
spite of a sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in 
performance of the operation, or due to certa;n natural causes such as 
spontaneous recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.