STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus SMT.SANTRA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 24-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
SMT.SANTRA 
APRIL 24, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act 1986-Sections 2( I)( o J and ( g). 
Medical Negligence-Damages for-Labourer lady had undergone steri-
lisation operation at Government Hospital since she had already seven children 
and was issued a cretificate to this effect-However, she gave birth to a female 
child-It was found that only the right Fallopian Tube was operated upon 
leaving the other one untouched-Held : In spite of the moral and statutory 
obligation of the parents to maintain their minor children, the poor lady entitled 
to damages for medical negligence-State is also vicariously liable for the 
negligence of its employees Criminal Procedure Code, S. 125. 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: Sections 20 and 23. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Minor children-Maintenance of-Held: Parents are liable to maintain 
E 
their minor children. 
Muslim Law: 
Minorchildren...:._Maintenance of-Held: Father is liable to maintain his 
minor children. 
F 
Tort: 
Negligence-Medical Negligence-Held: A doctor has a duty to act with 
a reasonable degree of care and skill. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Maintenance"-Meaning of-In the context of S.20 of the Hindu Adop-
tions and Maintenance Act, 1956. 
Negligence" -Meaning of 
195 
G 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent had undergone Sterilisation Operation at the 
Government General Hospital as she already had seven children and wanted 
to take advantage of the scheme of Sterilisation launched by the State 
Government. She was issued a certificate that her operation was successful. 
She was assured that she would not conceive a child in future. But she 
B 
conceived and ultimately gave birth to a female child. 
Thereafer, the respondent filed a suit against the State and its Officers 
"':( 
for recovery of damages for medical negligence. The explanation offered by 
the appdlant-State who were defendants in the suit was that at the time of 
Sterilisation Operation, only the right Fallopian Tube was operated upon 
C 
and the left Fallopian Tube was left untouched. The courts below rejected 
this explanation and the suit was decreed. Hence this appeal. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
On behalf of the appellant-State it was contended that the negligence 
of the Medical Officer in performing the unsuccessful sterilisation opera-
tion would not bind the State Government, that the State Government 
would not be liable vicariously for any damages to the respondent; and that 
the expenses awarded for rearing up the child and for her maintenance 
could not have been legally decreed as there was no element of "tort" 
involved in it nor had the respondent suffered any loss which could be 
compensated in terms of money. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Negligence is a 'tort'. Every Doctor who enters into the 
medical profession has a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and · 
skill. This is what is known as 'iml'lied undertaking' by a member of the 
medical profession that he would use a fair, reasonable and competent 
degree of skill. (202-F] 
Dr. Lax.man Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godhole, AIR (1969) 
SC 128; A.S. Mittal v. State of U.P., AIR (1989) SC 1570; Poonam Verma v. 
Ashwin Pate4 (1996) 4 SCC 332 and Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol 
Ahluwalia, JT (1998) 2 SC 620, relied on. 
Bolam v. Priem Hospital Management Committee, (1957) 2All ER 118; 
Whitehouse v. Jordon, (1981) 1 Ah ER 267; Maynard v. West Midlands 
Regional Health Authority, (1985) 1 All ER 635 and Sidway v. Bathlem Royal 
Hospita4 (1985) 1 All ER 643, referred to. 
STATE v. SMT. SANTRA 
197 
1.2. The Government at the Centre as also at the State level is aware 
that India is the second most populous country in the world and in order 
that it enters into an era of prosperity, progress and complete self-depend-
ence, it is necessary that the growth of the population be arrested. It is 
with this end in view that family planning programme has been launched 
by the Government. The implementation of the programme is directly 
in the hands of the Government Officers, including Medical Officers 
involved in the family planning programmes. The Medical Officers 
entrusted with the implementation or the Family Planning Programme 
cannot, by their negligent acts in not performing the complete sterilisation 
operation, sabotage the scheme of national importance. The people 
of the country who cooperate by offer

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