Medical negligence cannot be assumed solely because a surgery didn't produce the desired outcome, according to a ruling by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. In a case involving a woman who became pregnant after undergoing sterilization, the High Court overturned a first appellate court's decision to award her compensation, restoring the trial court's dismissal of her claim.
The case involved a woman who sought compensation of ₹90,000, along with 18% interest annually, after becoming pregnant following a sterilization operation. She alleged medical negligence, but the trial court found no evidence to support her claims. The court noted that the woman had signed a consent form prior to the surgery, acknowledging that there was no guarantee of success, and agreeing not to hold the doctor responsible if the operation failed.
Furthermore, the surgeon who performed the procedure, Dr. Hardeep Sharma, testified that he had informed the woman about the potential for failure, making it clear that the surgery could not guarantee the desired outcome.
Furthermore, the surgeon who performed the procedure, Dr. Hardeep Sharma, testified that he had informed the woman about the potential for failure, making it clear that the surgery could not guarantee the desired outcome.
Conversely, the first appellate court ruled in favor of the respondent, reversing the trial court's decision. It assumed negligence based on the belief that sterilization procedures should guarantee no further pregnancies. Additionally, the appellate court criticized the state for not conducting follow-up assessments to confirm the success of the procedure. As a result, it awarded the woman ₹30,000 in compensation, along with a 6% interest annually.
The state, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, appealed the decision to the High Court, arguing that medical negligence could not be assumed simply because the procedure failed. The state pointed out that no evidence had been provided to prove that the surgeon was negligent during the surgery.
The state, represented by Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok, appealed the decision to the High Court, arguing that medical negligence could not be assumed simply because the procedure failed.
The High Court agreed with the state’s argument, noting that medical negligence requires positive evidence, such as expert opinions, to support the claim. The court emphasized that liability for medical negligence cannot be established merely based on a failed outcome.
The High Court also highlighted that the woman had voluntarily signed a consent form, acknowledging that the procedure might not work and that she would not hold medical authorities responsible for its failure.
Based on these facts, the High Court concluded that there was no basis for the first appellate court's assumption of negligence, and it reinstated the trial court's decision, dismissing the woman's compensation claim.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Sai Sindhuja K/MSM)