Medical officers must exercise reasonable care in sterilization procedures to avoid liability for resulting unwanted pregnancies, entitling affected parties to compensation.

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner for the medical negligence caused to the petitioner resulting in lifetime finance constrains caused to the petitioner to bring up her fourth child after undergoing puerperal sterilization within the time stipulated by this Court.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the Medical Officer at the 1^st respondent Hospital conducted family planning operation on the petitioner on 17.01.2016. Even then, the petitioner got conceived. Therefore, according to him, the family planning operation was not done properly. The petitioner already has three children and is poor, and therefore, she opted for family planning. Now that again a female child is born to her, she is struggling to maintain all the children with the meagre income from her husband. Hence, the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents 1 to 5 on 17.01.2024 seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. He relied upon the decision of this Court in The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 and others vs. Dhanam in W.A.No.2506 of 2022, dated 09.07.2024, and submitted that in a similar case, this Court has awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and hence, in the present case also similar orders may be passed.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that before performing the family planning operation, an agreement was entered to the effect that if the operation was not successful, then compensation would be paid in accordance with the relevant Rules and according to the Rules, the petitioner is entitled to only a sum of Rs.60,000/-.

4. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on both sides.

5. In similar circumstances, this Court, in the case of Dhanam vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 and others in W.P.No.22349 of 2018, dated 25.01.2022, has passed the following order.

"13. In the instant case, the petitioner was not suffering from any disease for treatment of which she had gone to hospital authorities. She is a normal healthy person. She had approached the hospital authorities as she wanted to prevent birth of unwanted child. There was no question of error of judgment in performing the operation properly, it could have been simply a case of success. If in spite of this operation, she conceived and has given birth to a child, which establishes that it is clear case of something amiss while performing an operation and one can hopefully deduce that standard of reasonable care expected of the doctor was not taken.

14. It may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that in the counter affidavit the respondents have not at all stated that instead of taking reasonable care in performing sterilization operation and in spite operation being successful, there could be a conception. The respondents blamed the petitioner only to the extent she did not approach the hospital immediately after the stoppage of her menstrual periods so that the same could have been rectified. Therefore, the failure of the sterilization operation was not seriously disputed by the respondents and for such failure, the petitioner was even offered Rs.30,000/- as per the Scheme. This Court fails to understand as to how the negligence on the part of the Medical Officer who performed the sterilization operation on the petitioner, could be made good by just awarding Rs. 30,000/- irrespective of the status of the petitioner who does not wish to have child any more because the petitioner was already blessed with two female children and due to her poor financial ability and her incapacity to maintain the third child all along.

15. In such circumstances, the 3rd child is considered as “unwanted child” which had virtually taken bir