Vasectomy failure not medical negligence! HC sets aside compensation order

Chandigarh: Noting that failure in a sterilisation operation does not imply medical negligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently set aside the compensation granted to a couple for the failure in the vasectomy surgery, due to which the woman conceived and gave birth.

It was observed by the HC bench comprising Justice Nidhi Gupta that the chances of vasectomy failure are rare, with rates ranging from 0.3% to 9% and the petitioners fell in that "rare bracket".

"This would not imply any negligence on part of defendant No.4 (doctor). Learned lower Appellate Court has also not considered that prior to the operation, as per the certificate issued to the plaintiffs, it was made clear that in case of failure of operation, there was no liability upon the defendants," observed the HC bench.

The history of the case goes back to 1986 when the petitioner had filed an application at a Government Health Centre to undergo a vasectomy. He underwent the operation and paid the amount. Back then, the petitioner had been categorically instructed not to indulge in intercourse for the next three months and was asked to use contraception, and after three months to get a semen check-up.

Also Read: Telangana: 4 women die post botched sterilisation surgery, Govt orders probe

However, the petitioner alleged that his wife got pregnant, and when he went to the Civil Hospital and got himself checked, he was informed that the vasectomy operation had failed. Accordingly, the couple gave birth to their 5th child

While considering the matter, the trial court had earlier ordered the recovery of Rs 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the birth of the child, i.e., 02.07.1988.

The decision was challenged by the State at the High Court, and the State's counsel argued that the trial court erred in law in not appreciating the true spirit in which it was clearly stated that, after operating, necessary precautions advised by the doctors had to be taken by the patient.

The State also submitted that the patient was asked to submit an undertaking stating that in case the operation failed, the Defendant would not be responsible for the same.

After hearing the arguments, the Court noted that "The record reveals that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any proof that there was no carelessness on their part and/or that they had complied with the aforesaid directions of the Doctor that is plaintiff Ram Singh had got his semen checkup done three months after the operation."

Even though the petitioner claimed that he had visited the Civil Hospital for a semen check-up, the Court noted that there was no proof that he had visited the Civil Hospital three months after the operation for his semen testing.

Another factor that the Court highlighted was that even though the petitioners claimed it to be an unwanted pregnancy, there was no viable reason given as to why the said pregnancy was not terminated by the woman.

"Record reveals that it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that *** was unable to terminate the pregnancy as she was weak. However, there is no evidence brought on record by the plaintiffs to prove the said contention. Even *** never attempted to get the pregnancy removed," observed the Court, further adding that there was nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner's wife was not fit for undergoing the medical termination of pregnancy.

These factors were ignored by the Appellate Court, opined the HC bench.

"Singh/plaintiff was unsuccessful. No doubt, the said vasectomy of *** was unsuccessful; however, learned lower Appellate Court ought to have considered the fact that it was not denied by the plaintiffs that Dr. R.K. Goel had performed thousands of such operations. The statistics reveal that the chances of failure of vasectomy is rare with rates ranging from 0.3% to 9%. The plaintiffs fell in that rare bracket. This would not imply any negligence on part of defendant No.4. Learned lower Appellate Court has also not considered that prior to the operation, as per the certificate issued to the plaintiffs, it was made clear that in case of failure of operation, there was no liability upon the defendants," observed the bench, as it set aside the compensation granted by the trial court.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/punjab-hc-vasectomy-283589.pdf

Also Read: Failed tubectomy: Madras HC orders Medical Officer to compensate