Bhavadasan, J,

1. This is yet another case of failed sterilization resulting in an undesired and uninvited pregnancy. State is the appellant. The State has been mulcted with liability to pay compensation.

2. The plaintiffs, a couple, had three children. They wished to have no more. While so, a family planning programme organized by the State conducted a camp, in which the first plaintiff took part and underwent sterilization operation on 18.3.1988. A few months thereafter, to her dismay, she became pregnant and delivered a male child on 9.12.1990. The couple sued the State for compensation accusing the doctor who conducted the surgery of negligence in performing the sterilization operation and also for expenses for bringing up of the new born child.

3. The State resisted the claim on several grounds. They took the plea of limitation and also that the first plaintiff had been cautioned that it is not necessary that the sterilization operation should always be successful and there can be cases of failure. Claiming that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor who had performed the operation, they pointed out that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.

4. On the above pleadings, necessary issues were raised. The parties went to trial. The plaintiffs examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and had Exts.A1 to A6(b) marked. The defendants had Ext.B1 marked. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence in the case came to the conclusion that there was manifest negligence on the part of the doctor who conducted the sterilization operation and the State was liable. Accordingly, the trial court quantified the compensation at an amount of Rs.75,000/-and directed the State to pay the said amount with 6% future interest. The said judgment and decree are assailed in this appeal.

5. Learned Government Pleader, who appeared for the State, assailed the findings of the court below on several grounds. It is pointed out that in the light of the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram ((2005) 7 SCC 1), the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. It is emphasized that in Ext.B1 document, which was voluntarily signed by the first plaintiff, it was made clear that it is not necessary that the sterilization operation should always be successful and there could be cases of failure. Thus, according to the Government Pleader, the plaintiffs had been put on guard. There is also no evidence, according to the learned Government Pleader, to show that the doctor, who conducted the sterilization operation was in any manner negligent and a claim for compensation on the basis of unwanted child theory is no longer sustainable in law. At any rate, according to learned counsel, the amount awarded as compensation is excessive.

6. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the respondents points out that there is no basis for the above contentions at all. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are sufficient to show that there has been gross negligence in the performance of sterilization operation in the camp organized by the State and that had resulted in the undesired pregnancy of the first plaintiff. It is not an answer to say that the first plaintiff could have aborted the pregnancy at an early stage and thus could have got rid of the undesired child. According to learned counsel, even assuming that the damages for undesired child as such may not be maintainable, though he disputes the same, at any rate the plaintiffs have been successful in proving that there was negligence in performing the sterilization operation and are entitled to compensation. The court below has analysed the evidence in the proper perspective and has came to the right conclusion. According to the learned counsel, no grounds are made out to interfere with the findings of the court below and the appeal is only to be dismissed.

7. The story of unwanted pregnancy, failed sterilization, consequent compensation etc. is a long one. While of recent development in India, it has been