Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NIDHI GUPTA
State Of Haryana – Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals stem from a failed vasectomy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the plaintiffs claimed mental anguish from unwanted pregnancy. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. evidence suggests no negligence on part of the defendants. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. negligence and liability are not established under the circumstances. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 5. the appeals were allowed due to lack of liability. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
Nidhi Gupta, J.
Present appeals have been filed by the State/ defendants No.1 to 3, against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby Civil Appeal No.349 of 1998 filed by plaintiff Ram Singh, and Civil Appeal No.78 of 2001 filed by plaintiff Sharda Rani against the dismissal of their suit by the ld. trial Court vide common judgment and decree dated 11.09.1997, have been allowed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order as both appeals emanate from same incident; facts & issues involved in both the appeals are identical; as also these appeals are against common impugned judgment and decree dated 15.06.2001 whereby the appeals filed by the respondents/plaintiffs were allowed by the learned Additional District Judge.
2. T
Negligence cannot be established in cases of failed sterilization operations if the plaintiffs fail to follow medical advice post-procedure.
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....
Failure of sterilization does not automatically constitute negligence; liability exists only with proof of malpractice, not merely based on resultant pregnancy.
The judgment emphasizes the need to establish negligence or carelessness on the part of the medical practitioner in failed sterilization cases, highlighting the burden of proof on the plaintiff and t....
Court determined that compensation claims for failed sterilization operations require proof of negligence, which is beyond writ jurisdiction.
Medical officers are liable for negligence in family planning operations, especially if their failure causes unexpected pregnancies, resulting in financial burden.
Compensation for unwanted pregnancies post-sterilization requires proof of medical negligence; otherwise, claims are unsustainable.
The deceased Radha died due to the carelessness and negligence of the doctors of the defendants' hospital in providing proper and adequate treatment to her during her hospitalisation for sterilisatio....
Negligence in performing sterilization surgery mandates state compensation for economic burdens arising from an unwanted child, reaffirming the responsibilities of medical professionals within family....
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
