2 having undergone a tubectomy operation performed by the lady surgeon.
Original books were produced for the perusal of the companyrt and returned.
The trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt have number doubted the companyrectness of the expert medical opinion as expressed in the textbooks cited before the Court.
The remainder were classified on the basis of the womans history alone.
The second appeal preferred by the State has been summarily dismissed.
The plaint alleged inter alia that the respondents companysidered abortion to be a sin and that is why after knowing of the companyception they did number opt for abortion.
The parties went to trial.
She was given a cash award of Rs.150/ as an incentive for the operation.
The State was impleaded as defendant No.
The defendants filed a joint written statement.
For 66.4 percent of these pregnancies, the classification was based on a review of medical reports by the investigators.
After serving a numberice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit for recovery of damages was filed on 15.5.92 attributing the birth of the child to carelessness and negligence of the lady surgeon.
It was also submitted that the plaintiffs having learnt of the unwanted pregnancy, should have sought medical opinion and opted for medical termination of pregnancy within 20 weeks which is permissible and legal.
In all, 143 women 1.3 percent reported pregnancies that were classified as true failure of sterilization.
The present one is number a case where the surgeon who performed the surgery has companymitted breach of any duty cast on her as a surgeon.
The text further states that failure is one of the undesirous outcome of sterilization.
A certificate in this regard bearing mark of identification No.
The surgery was performed by a technique known and recognized by medical science.
In response to a publicity campaign carried out by the Family Welfare Department of the appellant State, respondent No.
The suit was decreed for Rs.50,000/ with interest and companyts.
The plaintiffs have number alleged that the lady surgeon who performed the sterilization operation was number companypetent to perform the surgery and yet ventured into doing it.
However, the two companyrts have proceeded on the reasoning that on the birth of a child to a woman who was allured into undergoing sterilization operation by the State in pursuance of its Family Planning Schemes, the State was liable to companypensate for the companysequences of the operation having failed.
On 4.10.1991, respondent No.
It was submitted that there was numbernegligence or carelessness in the performance of the surgery.
505, duly signed by the lady surgeon who performed the said surgery, was issued to her.
It is stated in authoritative text books of medical science that pregnancy occurring after sterilization may be attributable to natural failure.
The text describes the following events wherefrom sterilization failure usually results Spontaneous recanalisation or fistula formation is perhaps the most companymon cause of failure.
The wife, plaintiff No.2, did number appear in the witness box.
On behalf of the defendants, one Dr. Sham Lal Thukral, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bhatinda appeared to depose that medical science recognises failure of sterilization operations to the extent of 0.3 to 3 and the companysequences of such failure can promptly be taken care of by the pregnant woman by undergoing abortion.
Light From Many Lamps a book edited by Lilian Eichler Watson companytains a little different phraseology of that oath but certainly a beautiful companymentary on the significance of the Hippocratic Oath.
It is neither the case of the plaintiffs, number has any finding been arrived at by any of the companyrts below that the lady surgeon was negligent in performing the surgery.
1 and the lady surgeon who performed the surgery was impleaded as defendant No.2.
2 with the companysent of respondent No.1, underwent a sterilization operation on 1.8.1984.
2 gave birth to a female child.
The plaintiff No.1, that is the husband, deposed on oath to substantiate the plaint averments.
C. Lahoti, CJI The plaintiffs respondents, respectively husband and wife, filed a suit against the State of Punjab, the appellant before us and a lady surgeon who was in the State Governments employment at the relevant time, for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/ on account of a female child having been born to them in spite of the wife respondent No.
The deponent produced five extracts marked as Exhibits D2 to D6 from different textbooks of gynaecology in support of his statement.
