Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

Important issues relating to failed sterilisation surgeries conducted in Government hospitals or under Government programmes are the focal issues for decision in these appeals, which arise from the decree and judgment in a suit for damages instituted by an economically marginalised woman who underwent a mini lap sterilisation surgery in a Government hospital, and, thereafter, bore a fourth child, much against the firm belief she entertained, on the basis of the assurance given by the Government through its proclamations and by the doctor, that she would not conceive after that surgical sterilisation process.

2. We proceed referring to the parties, going by their status before the court of first instance.

3. During the course of hearing of these appeals, we had enquired about the affairs of the plaintiff's fourth progeny, begotten after the allegedly failed procedure. By affidavit sworn to by the plaintiff later, it is stated that, unfortunately, that child, Vishnu, died on 15.5.2008, owing to cardiac problems. In that affidavit, she has also attributed the fate of the child as relatable to the unwanted fourth pregnancy and has further stated the mental agony of the parents on the loss of that child.

4. Heard Adv. K.G. Balasubramanian on behalf of the plaintiff and the learned Government pleader Adv. Noble Mathew and the learned Government pleader who appeared thereafter, for the State.

5. In setting up her case in that regard, apart from attributing negligence to the doctor, the plaintiff pleaded about the confidence that she had reposed on materials like pamphlets, issued by the Government, propagating such sterilisation as an error-free mode of population control. The court below allowed the claim in part and granted her a decree, as against the first defendant, State of Kerala, holding it vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctor.

6. Though a defendant, the doctor who conducted the surgery has not appealed against the impugned verdict; may be because the court below did not decree the suit as against that person. The first defendant - State's appeal is A.S.No.57 of 1998. Plaintiff sought leave to appeal, as an indigent, on the question of adequacy of damages awarded by the trial court. On being granted leave to do so, her appeal is on file as A.S.No.263 of 2003.

7. The arguments on behalf of the plaintiff, in support of the findings by the court below on the issue of liability of the first defendant - State, are twofold. Supporting the impugned decree, to the extent granted in favour of the plaintiff, and pleading for enhancement of the quantum of damages, her learned counsel, firstly argued that there is no ground to interfere with the finding of the court below on the issue of negligence of the doctor and the vicarious liability of the State in that regard; more particularly because, the doctor who is primarily liable has not appealed against the findings as to negligence. Second; of more importance; is the argument on behalf of the plaintiff that she and her husband, belonging to the economically and socially marginalised sector of the society, reposed absolute faith and confidence in the declarations made by and on behalf of the State Government that the surgical procedure administered to the plaintiff ensured foolproof success in preventing future pregnancy, and, therefore; notwithstanding any question of negligence being pleaded and proved as against the doctor who carried out the procedure, the State is liable to compensate on the failure of such surgery. It is pointed out that this is so, as part of State liability and, founded on doctrines emanating on a wholesome and meaningful application of the Constitution of India, over and above the doctrine of promissory estoppel or any principle akin thereto; and, independent of, tortious liability and resultant vicarious liability. The third limb of the arguments on behalf of the plaintiff is that the damages to be awarded in su