Judgment

R.C. Lahoti, CJI.—The plaintiffs-respondents, respectively husband and wife, filed a suit against the State of Punjab, the appellant before us and a lady surgeon who was in the State Government’s employment at the relevant time, for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of a female child having been born to them in spite of the wife-respondent No.2 having undergone a tubectomy operation performed by the lady surgeon. According to the plaintiffs-respondents, they already had a son and two daughters from the wed-lock lasting over 17 years. In response to a publicity campaign carried out by the Family Welfare Department of the appellant-State, respondent No.2 with the consent of respondent No.1, underwent a sterilization operation on 1.8.1984. A certificate in this regard bearing mark of identification No. 505, duly signed by the lady surgeon who performed the said surgery, was issued to her. She was given a cash award of Rs. 150/- as an incentive for the operation. On 4.10.1991, respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child. After serving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit for recovery of damages was filed on 15.5.92 attribu