STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. RAJ RANI

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. C. Lahoti
G. P. Mathur
P. K. Balasubramanyan
Judgment Date: 2005-08-29
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. The judgments and decrees under appeals are set aside. All the suits filed by the plaintiffs-respondents are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout. However, any amount paid by the appellant-State to the plaintiffs-decree holders shall not be liable to be refunded by way of restitution.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Haryana and Ors.

Respondents

Raj Rani

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ajay Siwach
• T. V. George
• Pardeep Dahiya
• Ms. Jyotika Kalra
• Bhaskar
• Y. Kulkarni
• Mrs. K. Sharda Devi

Counsels for Respondents

• Ajay Siwach
• T. V. George
• Pardeep Dahiya
• Ms. Jyotika Kalra
• Bhaskar
• Y. Kulkarni
• Mrs. K. Sharda Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Raj Rani pertains to a woman who underwent a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon employed by the State. Subsequently she became pregnant and delivered a child, leading to a suit against the doctor for compensation from the State on the ground of vicarious liability. Decrees in favor of the decree-holders were challenged by the State through civil appeals. The core issue was whether the State can be held vicariously liable for a sterilization failure when there is no proven negligence by the operating surgeon, and whether pregnancy can occur despite a technically successful operation due to natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation. The Court relied on a three-judge precedent, State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors., which holds that the doctor’s liability arises only where the failure of the operation is attributable to negligence, and not otherwise. Medical literature is cited to show that sterilization has a non-negligible failure rate (0.3%–7%), depending on technique, and that a patient may conceive even after skilled surgery performed by a competent surgeon. Accordingly, in the absence of negligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable, and the State’s vicarious liability would not arise. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the decrees, and dismissed the suits, while holding that any amounts already paid shall not be refunded as restitution.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

De hors (Latin: independent of)
Vicarious liability

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State argued that, despite decrees in favour of decree-holders, it was not interested in depriving the plaintiffs of payment but sought a judicial settlement of the legal question. It contended that restitution of already paid amounts was unwarranted and that liability should not be imposed where there is no proof of negligence by the surgeon, emphasizing the non-negligent causes of pregnancy after sterilization.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents (decree-holders) argued for the liability of the State under vicarious liability principles, asserting that the doctor’s negligence caused the pregnancy and that the State should be responsible for compensation to the victims.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram & Ors.	CA 5128 of 2002	Positive	The Court relied on this prior decision to hold that liability arises only if the doctor’s negligence caused the failure; pregnancy after sterilization can occur due to natural causes; the State’s vicarious liability is not automatic without proof of negligence.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A # STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. _V._ RAJ RANI ## AUGUST 29, 2005 ## [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] B _Torts-Medical negligence-Performance of sterilization operation by a surgeon employed by the State Government-Delivery of unwanted childClaim petition/or compensation from the State Government on the principle_ C _of vicarious liability-Held : In the absence of proof of negligence, the Surgeon cannot be held liable-The pregnancy could be for reasons_ de hors _any negligence of the Surgeon-Consequently, State cannot be held vicariously liable to pay compensation to the victim-However, the compensation amount already paid by the State to the ivon1an decree-holder not to be refunded_ D **The respondent, a women, had undergone a sterilization operation** performed by a surgeon in the employment of the State of Haryana. **However, the woman became pregnant and delivered_ a child. Suit** was filed by her against the doctor claiming compensation from the State of Haryana on the principle of vicarious liability; The suit and the **connected suits on the same issue have been decreed. Hence the present** appeals. E > Allowing the appeals, the Court F HELD : 1.1. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in the case of _State of Punjab_ v. _Shiv Ram & Ors._ that child birth in spite of• sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in performance of the **operation, or due to certain natural causes such a spontaneous** recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise. G Several textbooks on medical negligence have recognized the percentage of failure of the sterilization operation due to natural causes to be varying between 0.3. % to 7% depending on the techniques or method chosen for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may H 1027 1028 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognized by medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons _de hors_ any negligence of the surgeon. In the absence of proof of negligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of B the State being held vicariously liable also would not arise. The decrees cannot, therefore, be upheld. [1029-B, C, DJ _State of Punjab_ v. _Shiv Ram & Ors._ decided by the Supreme Court on August 25, 2005, relied on. C 1.2. However amount, if any, paid by the appellant-State to the plaintiffs-decree holders shall not be liable to be refunded by way of restitution. [ 1029-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2743 of2002. ## D From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 4322 of 2000. ## WITH E C.A. Nos. 6417/2002, 5312, 6272/2003, C.A. Nos. 5316 and 1359 of 2005. Ajay Siwach, T.V. George and Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Jyotika Kalra, Bhaskar, Y. Kulkarni and Mrs. K. Sharda Devi for the appearing parties. ## F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. : Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 3106/2004. In all these appeals, it is not necessary to notice the facts of individual cases. It would suffice to state that in all these cases, the plaintiff, a woman, G had undergone a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon in the employment of the State of Haryana. Subsequent to the performance of the surgery, the woman became pregnant and delivered a child. Suit was filed against the doctor who had performed the surgery, claiming compensation based on the cause of action of 'unwanted pregnancy' and 'unwanted child', H attributable to the failure of the surgery. State of Haryana was impleaded, STATE v. RAJ RANI [LAHOTI, CJ.] 1029 **E** - claiming decree against it on the principle of vicarious liability. The suits have **A** been decreed and such decrees have been put in issue by filing these appeals by special leave. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in _State of Punjab_ v. _Shiv Ram_ & _Ors._ (C.A. 5128 of2002 decided on August 25, 2005) that child birth in spite of a sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in **B** performance of the operation, or due to certa;n natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise. Several textbooks on medical negligence have recognized the percentage of failure of the sterilization operation due to natural causes to be varying c between 0.3% to 7% depending on the techniques or method chosen for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognized by medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons _de hors_ any negligence of **D** the surgeon. In the absence of proof ofnegligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of the State being held vicariously liable also would not arise. The decrees cannot, therefore, be upheld. **B** c However, the learned counsel for the appellant-State stated at the very outset that the plaintiffs in all these cases are poor persons and the State wa> not interested in depriving the decree-holders of the payment made in satisfaction of the decrees but the State was certainly interested in having the question of law settled. The stand taken by the appellant-State has been that in spite of the decrees under appeal having been set aside, any payment already made thereunder would be treated by the State as _ex gratia_ payment. **F** **In** view of the law laid down in _State of Punjab_ v. _Shiv Ram_ & _Ors.,_ (supra) all these appeals are allowed. The judgments and decrees under appeals are set aside. All the suits filed by the plaintiffs-respondents are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs throughout. However, any amount paid by the appellant-State to the plaintiffs-decree holders shall not be liable to be refunded by way of restitution. S.K.S. Appeals allowed.