The defendant State in O.S. 84 of 1989 before the Sub Court, Vadakara, who has been called upon to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages to the second plaintiff with future interest at 6% is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they were available before the court below.

2. The plaintiffs had three children aged seven years, four and a half years and two and a half years, namely Vipesh, Vipin and Vijila respectively. One of the children had congenital defects. Plaintiffs hail from poor circumstances. They were unable to bring up another child. Therefore they decided to go in for family planning. At that time, it so happened that on 11.10.1985 the respondent State was organizing a female sterilization Camp at Thiruvangoor. From the literature distributed with reference to the said Camp, plaintiffs were given to understand that laparoscopic sterilization method is safe and fool proof. They were given to understand that the operation would be done by experienced doctors with the assistance of qualified persons. Lured by the literature and also forced by the circumstances, the second plaintiff underwent laparoscopic sterilization operation. It was done by Dr. Biswas Vydia. However, later she conceived quite contrary to the assurance given by the persons who had conducted the Camp. Pointing out that the pregnancy was due to the negligence in the conduct of operation done by the doctor, she sued the State. The doctor, who had conducted the operation was not alive on the date of the suit.

3. The State resisted the claim. It denied that there was any negligence on the part of the doctor, who had conducted the operation and it was pointed out that the plaintiff had no cause of action. It was contended that they had given no assurance that laparoscopic sterilization was the fool proof. The State contended that the operation was in 1985 and the second plaintiff had conceived only in 1988. It is therefore contended that even if the second plaintiff had conceived subsequently, it could not be attributed to any negligence, even assuming there was any, on the part of the doctor, who had conducted the operation. They denied the allegation of inefficiency of staff etc. and pointed out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.

4. The court framed necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 and exhibits marked as Exts. A1 to A14. The defendant chose not to adduce any evidence. Exts.XI to X3 are third party exhibits. The court below on an appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had succeeded in establishing that laparoscopic sterilization operation was done negligently and therefore granted a decree for a sum of Rs.50,000/-in favour of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree are assailed in this appeal.

5. The question that arises for consideration is whether any interference is called for with the judgment and decree of the court below.

6. The facts fall within a narrow compass. Even though the defendants had initially disputed that the second plaintiff had undergone the operation, that issue no longer survives in view of the categoric finding of the court below that she did undergo the operation on 11.10.1985. The plaintiffs pointed out that they were ignorant of the need of post-operative care, since they received no proper advice etc., and later on the second plaintiff conceived quite contrary to the assurance given by the authorities, who had conducted the Camp, to the dismay of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, they already have three children and they cannot afford to bring up another child. They contended that they present state of affairs was due to the negligent act on the part of the doctor and the staff, who conducted the operation.

7. The defendant State denied the allegations and pointed out that there was no negligence or want of care on the part of either the doctor, who conducted the oper