Medical professionals cannot be held liable for sterilisation failures due to natural causes when they adhere to accepted medical standards and inform patients of inherent risks.

1. This group of cases involved the same questions of facts and law and therefore, I decide by this common judgment.

2. In all these cases, the petitioners are poor women who had two / three children and had opted for sterilisation in different Health Camps in Tripura and in Govt. Hospital, but subsequently had to bear pregnancy and ultimately some of them gave birth to a female child and some gave birth to a male child inspite of sterilisation operation by Govt. doctors. It is therefore contended by the petitioners that the doctors who conducted the sterilisation operation were negligent and the operation failed for which they became pregnant inspite of sterilisation operation. All these petitioners therefore filed these writ petitions claiming compensation as damages and for maintaining the unwanted child for medical negligence.
2A. The Govt. and the doctors who were made parties in some of the writ petitions filed counter - affidavit stating that the sterilisation scheme as framed by the Central Govt. was undertaken by the Tripura Govt. and taking the advantages of the scheme, these petitioners got sterilisation mostly in ninetys and some of them in the year 2000. After sterilisation operation was performed in the petitioners, they were issued certificates to that effect. It was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the Medical Officer while performing sterilisation operation and it was made clear to the petitioners that this operation is likely to succeed, but there was no guarantee that the operation is 100 per cent proved against the sterilisation. The petitioners also contended that when they felt that they had become pregnant, they approached the Govt. doctors who told them that after sterilisaion operation they cannot have pregnancy. But when pregnancy became apparent, the doctors advised not to go for abortion as the same would be dangerous to life.

3. In W.P. (C) 484/01, the petitioner went for termination of pregnancy and pregnancy was terminated but the petitioner claimed for compensation due to pain and agony of the pregnancy. All the petitioners had two / three children and in fact, after sterilisation operation put them to unnecessary burden of bearing up a child, as also of the expenses involved in the maintenance of the child including expenses towards their clothing and education. It was in these circumstances that these writ petitions were filed by the petitioners.

4. The respondent Govt. in addition had taken the plea that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that no allegation has been made against the Medical Officer who has conducted the sterilisation operation - the manner in which the negligent committed or even the petitioners were silent in which way the operation was unsuccessful. It was further contended that whether the negligence was committed by the Govt. doctors is purely a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court under writ jurisdiction. It is also contended by the Respondent - Medical Officer as well as by the Govt. that in all this group of writ petitions, the petitioners had undergone sterilisation by Laparoscopic Ligation Operation. In the Leperoscopic sterilisation the tubes are not disconnected by cutting a portion of fallopian tube. The tubes are tied by wearing scientific rings.

5. After sterilisation operation written instructions are given to the petitioners to