The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, November 28, denied the compensation claim of a 39-year-old woman who underwent postpartum sterilization (PPS) surgery. The woman alleged that due to the negligence of the doctor who performed the post-partum sterilization (PPS) surgery, she conceived and gave birth to her fifth child.
The woman had conceived and delivered her fifth child around 5 years after undergoing the PPS surgery. Taking attention to that point, the Court observed that if the surgery had actually failed, the woman would have gotten pregnant much earlier.
"Had the surgery actually been a failure, as alleged by the plaintiff's mother, the chances or possibility of the plaintiff conceiving would have been much earlier. The time gap between the surgery and the plaintiff conceiving also probabilizes the contention of the defendants that it was due to the natural cause referred to hereinabove that the plaintiff happened to conceive and deliver her 5th child and not due to any negligence or carelessness of the 2nd defendant in carrying out the surgery," opined the HC bench.
The petitioner had filed a plea in court that she belonged to a very poor family and already had four children. They did not want to have any more children, which is why she and her husband visited the treating doctor at a government hospital. The doctor had consulted them to undergo PPS surgery to avoid future pregnancies. On the doctor’s advice, she underwent PPE surgery. But, later on, she conceived and gave birth to the girl child. She conceived only because the surgery had failed and had been done in a careless and negligent manner. Blaming this, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs 2 lakh from the doctor and the government authorities.
On the other hand, the district collector submitted that the concerned doctor was a qualified gynecologist and had performed 2,502 sterilizations. The petitioner was the first case of failure.
Defending the allegation that surgery had been performed carelessly, it was submitted that the doctor had in fact performed surgery with the utmost care, caution, and devotion. Additionally, he mentioned the fact that there is a 0.5 to 1% chance of failure even in developed countries like the U.S. The doctor conceded that it was not a guaranteed method to avoid further pregnancies. Failure in PPE surgery is rare and common.
The court referenced a plethora of precedents, such as State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (2005) and State of Kerala v. P.G. Kumari Amma (2011), in order to determine the negligence of medical professionals.
Justice Sudha emphasized that compensation can only be granted for failed sterilization surgeries if it is because of the surgeon’s negligence. Compensation cannot be granted for childbirth. Failure due to natural causes would not provide any reason for a claim.
The court found that the petitioner had been unsuccessful in prima facie proving negligence and carelessness on the part of the doctor. The court also denoted that there was no case against the doctor’s skill and competence to perform the surgery.
The court viewed the possibility of pregnancy even after sterilization surgery in very rare cases. The court also viewed the five-year gap in the delivery of the petitioner’s fifth child after surgery. The court opined that there was no negligence attributed to the doctor.
With all the observations, the court dismissed the plea and noted, "In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the precedents referred to, it can only be held that, as no negligence or carelessness on the part of the 2nd defendant has been established, the claim for damages cannot succeed. That being the position, there can be no vicarious liability of the 1st defendant, the employer. I find no infirmity in the findings of the trial court calling for an interference by this Court."
(Input from various media sources)
(Rehash/Komal Bhoi)
