SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5429

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
K. Jeevajothi – Appellant
Versus
The Director, Family Welfare, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 20161 of 2023
Decided On : 11-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Karthic Rajan
For the Respondent: K. Balasubramani

Medical professionals must ensure proper care in sterilization procedures; failure results in state liability to compensate for unwanted births and upbringing costs.

Headnote:(A) Medical Negligence - Compensation - Family Planning Operation - The petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for negligence in sterilization leading to the birth of an unwanted child. Court considered poor financial circumstances and awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- as just compensation, in addition to educational expenses for the child. (Paras 1-20)

(B) Family Planning as a National Programme - The court highlighted the responsibility of medical officers in performing sterilization operations and the need for reasonable care to prevent unintended pregnancies under the Family Planning Programme. (Paras 13-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after undergoing sterilization, conceived and had a third child, resulting in financial strain. The court noted existing compensation of Rs. 60,000/- and previous decisions awarding similar compensations.

Findings of Court:
The negligence was evident, and the petitioner was entitled to compensation, including future costs for the upbringing of the child.

Issues: The primary issue was the extent of negligence by the medical staff in performing sterilization and the quantum of compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the state must take responsibility for the unintended child born due to medical negligence and the obligation to assist in upbringing due to the circumstances.

Result: The petitioner was awarded Rs. 2,40,000/- in addition to educational provisions for the child.

Table of Content
1. petition for compensation due to alleged medical negligence. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding compensation amount and basis for medical negligence. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's analysis of similar cases and the necessity for reasonable care. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. compensation and educational support due to failure of sterilization. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed to direct the respondents to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner for the medical negligence on the part of the fifth respondent in performing the family planning operation.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the Medical Officer at the fifth respondent Hospital conducted family planning operation on the petitioner on 14.05.2022. Even then, the petitioner got conceived. Therefore, according to him, the family planning operation was not done properly. The petitioner already has two 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 4 on 20.05.2023 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. He would submit that already a sum of Rs.60,000/- was awarded to the petitioner. He relied upon the decision of this Court in The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 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/- and that has already been paid to the petitioner.

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. The Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 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 statu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top