Punjab & Haryana HC: No Compensation for Failed Sterilization, Birth of Deformed Child Alone Not Proof of Medical Negligence

Case Name: Satya Devi & Ors. v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: September 26, 2025
Citation: RSA No. 2261 of 1998 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs challenging concurrent findings of the trial and first appellate courts, which had rejected their claim for ₹2,40,000 compensation on account of failed sterilization operations. It held that the mere fact of pregnancy and childbirth following sterilization, even of a deformed child, does not ipso facto establish negligence. Compensation can be awarded only if negligence in the conduct of the operation is specifically pleaded and proved. Relying on State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (2005) 7 SCC 1 and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Court reiterated that failure of sterilization may occur due to known failure rates and natural causes such as spontaneous recanalization, and unless the Bolam test of medical negligence is satisfied, no liability can be fastened on the surgeon or the State .

Summary: The appellants were a couple who had already undergone sterilization procedures—first the husband in 1985 and then the wife, Satya Devi, in 1987—under the State’s family planning programme. Despite this, Satya Devi conceived and delivered a sixth child in December 1987, who was born 100% physically deformed. The plaintiffs sought damages alleging negligence of the operating surgeon. The State defended that sterilization has a known 2–4 per 1000 failure rate, that due care had been taken, and that facilities for free medical termination of pregnancy were available, which the plaintiffs chose not to avail. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the claim, finding no negligence proved. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that sterilization camps were conducted hastily without due care, that no proper instructions were given, and that failure leading to a handicapped child should itself raise presumption of negligence. They relied on High Court decisions such as Smt. Shobha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Fullo Devi v. State of Haryana. The High Court rejected these contentions, holding that such contrary rulings stood overruled or distinguished by Shiv Ram. It noted that unless there is evidence of lack of skill or unreasonable conduct by the surgeon, liability cannot arise. It further emphasized that childbirth after sterilization cannot automatically be considered “unwanted” to claim damages .

Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation as no negligence was proved. It reiterated that under medical negligence law, sterilization failure per se does not establish liability, and damages cannot be granted merely on account of the birth of a child, even if physically deformed, without clear proof of breach of duty by the surgeon .