Back
H. S. MADAAN
State of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Kumar Pal – Respondent
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Kumar Pal and his wife Smt.Jagwati, both residents of village Darana, Post Office Hassanpur, District Faridabad had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Medical Officer/Incharge, Civil Dispensary, Hodal, Faridabad, Secretary/Ministry of Health, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, Director, Health Services, Haryana, Chandigarh, Chief Medical Officer/Civil Surgeon, District Faridabad and State of Haryana through Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, claiming damages by way of compensation.
2. Shortly put, the case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife were having two daughters and a son; thereafter they did not desire to have any further child, as such plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati underwent tubectomy operation from Civil Dispensary, Hodal on 1.6.1990; the operation was performed by the Medical Officer/Incharge of Civil Dispensary in question and thereafter, he had issued a certificate to the plaintiffs that plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati would not conceive further and would not give birth to any child, however, subsequently plaintiff No.2 Smt.Jagwati conceived and gave birth to a female
Medical professionals have a duty to act with a reasonable degree of care and skill, and breach of such duties may give rise to a cause of action for negligence and entitlement to recover damages.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish negligence in a medical malpractice case.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the State Government to pay compensation for medical malpractice and negligence in conducting medical procedures under the Fami....
Medical officers are liable for negligence in family planning operations, especially if their failure causes unexpected pregnancies, resulting in financial burden.
In negligence claims related to medical procedures, a successful operation without negligence does not result in liability for unforeseen pregnancies.
Failure of sterilization does not automatically constitute negligence; liability exists only with proof of malpractice, not merely based on resultant pregnancy.
The burden lies on the defendants to prove that there was no negligence in cases of failed sterilization operation. The court also emphasized the need for the State Government to devise provisions fo....
Negligence in performing sterilization surgery mandates state compensation for economic burdens arising from an unwanted child, reaffirming the responsibilities of medical professionals within family....
Medical Negligence – Methods of sterilization / tubectomy are not 100% safe and secure.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
