Gujarat High Court
Panchmahals Jilla Panchayat vs Keshabhai Chandabhai Vanzara on 18 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026
undefined
R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 149 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PANCHMAHALS JILLA PANCHAYAT & ORS.
Versus
KESHABHAI CHANDABHAI VANZARA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UM SHASTRI(830) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. URVASHI PUROHIT ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 3,4
JENIL M SHAH(7840) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 18/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"), challenging the impugned judgment and decree whereby the Special Civil Suit No. 36 of 1991 filed by the original plaintiff for recovery of the compensation of Rs.80,000/- was decreed in favour of the plaintiff with the interest at 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the realisation, by judgment and decree dated 30.12.1997. The appeal under Section 96 of the Code was preferred by the present appellant before the Presiding Officer, 8th Fast Track Court, Panchmahal by judgment and decree dated 08.05.2006. The learned First Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined Appellate Court partly allowed the First Appeal and reduced the rate of interest from 12 % to 6% but confirmed the order of granting the compensation.
2. The facts in the nutshell are that on 26.11.1981, the plaintiff No. 2- Bai Sharda had undergone the sterilisation operation under the Government scheme at Civil Hospital, Godhra. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the sterilisation operation failed and plaintiff had conceived a child and delivered a baby girl on 02.04.1990 and therefore, she borne additional financial expenses of Rs. 80,000/- . Therefore, she claimed the compensation of Rs. 80,000/- with 12 % interest from 02.04.1990 the day on which the baby girl was born.
3. The defendant having been appeared placed the multiple contentions including the contention that the plaintiff could have avoided the birth of the child which she conceived despite the sterilisation operation, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any compensation on the ground of negligence of the doctor. Contention is also raised that as per Government Scheme if a female has conceived a child despite undergone sterilisation operation, Government hospital would conduct abortion procedure free of cost and also shall conduct sterilisation operation. It is further pleaded that the suit has been field without the mandatory statutory notice under Section 80 of the Code.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
4. The learned Trial Court after framing the issues and permitting the parties to lead the evidence was pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the appeal filed by the appellant was partly allowed and the interest rate was reduced from 12% to 6%. The appellant-Panchmahal- Jilla Panchayat, therefore, is before this Court by way of Appeal.
5. By order dated 20.11.2007, the Co-ordinate Bench has admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial question of law :-
"1. Whether both the Courts below justify in law in awarding compensation of Rs.80,000/- with interest towards compensation on the ground of negligence of the doctor in operating family planning operation after a period of 8 years.
2. Is it open for the Court below to award compensation in a case of failure of family planning operation after a period of 8 years and that to without support of any evidence.
3. Whether the court below has committed an error of law in awarding a compensation without help of any cogent evidence in medical jurisprudence.Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
4. Whether both the Courts below have committed a grave error of law in granting compensation without asking plaintiff to join concern doctor as a party respondent/defendants.
2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the order passed by the Trial Court, Second Appeal is Admitted.
3. The Registry is hereby directed to call for the record and proceedings of Special Civil Suit No.36 of 1991 from 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Godhara, so as to reach this Court on or before 28th January, 2008. The registry is further directed to enlist this Second Appeal on final hearing board on 8th February, 2008."
6. Heard learned advocate Mr. U. M Shastri appearing for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and learned AGP Ms. Urvashi Purohit appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4.
7. Learned advocate Mr. U.M Shastri appearing for the appellant and the learned AGP Ms. Urvashi Purohit referred to the recent judgment passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 79 of 2010 and other allied matters and submitted that the issue raised in the Second Appeal is squarely covered by the oral judgment passed by this Court, therefore, without proliferating this matter on merit, it is Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined submitted that the appeal deserves consideration and the impugned order requires to be set aside.
8. As against learned advocate Mr. Jenil Shah appearing for the original plaintiff supports the judgement of the learned Trial Court and submits that since the plaintiff suffered the burden of additional child despite she had undergone the sterilisation operation, the negligence of the doctors is stark and visible and therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error in granting the compensation and therefore, he submits to dismiss the Second Appeal.
9. The seminal issue which is involved in this matter that the plaintiff having undergone a sterilisation operation can claim compensation upon its failure despite continuing with the pregnancy and allowing the child to be borne, was the question in Second Appeal No. 79 of 2010. Thus, the question raised in this appeal is analogous to the question in Second Appeal No. 79 of 2010.
10. In Second Appeal No. 79 of 2010 and allied matters, in para 11, this Court has framed the following issues :-
"11. The seminal issue involved in the matter is whether a plaintiff who has undergone a sterilization operation can claim compensation upon its failure, despite continuing with the pregnancy and allowing the child to be born ?.
Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
11. This Court in Second Appeal 79 of 2010 and allied matters adumbrated the reasons for allowing the Second Appeal as under :-
15. The issue raised in this Second Appeals are no more res-
integra.
16. In the case of Shiv Ram (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue whether failure of sterilization operation simplicitor can result into award of compensation. Relevant para 24,25,27,28,29 and 30 reads as under :-
"24. We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that merely because a woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child. The claim in tort can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery. The proof of negligence shall have to satisfy Bolam's test. So also, the surgeon cannot be held liable in contract unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the surgeon had assured 100 % exclusion of pregnancy after the surgery and was only on the basis of such assurance that the plaintiff was persuaded to undergo surgery. As noted in various decisions which we have referred to hereinabove, ordinarily a surgeon does not offer such guarantee.
25. The cause of failure of sterilization operation may be obtained from laparoscopic inspection of the uterine tubes, or by x-ray examination, or by pathological examination of the materials removed at a subsequent operation of re- sterilisation. The discrepancy between operation notes and the result of x-ray films in respect of the number of rings or clips or nylon sutures used for occlusion of the tubes, will lead to logical inference of negligence on the part of the Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined gynaecologist in case of failure of sterilisation operation. 26 ...xxx....
27. The methods of sterilization so far known to medical science which are most popular and prevalent are not 100% safe and secure. In spite of the operation having been successfully performed and without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural causes. Once the woman misses the menstrual cycle, it is expected of the couple to visit the doctor and seek medical advice. A reference to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 is apposite. Section 3 thereof permits termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner, notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in certain circumstances and within a period of 20 weeks of the length of pregnancy. Explanation II appended to sub- section (2) of Section 3 provides "Explanation II. Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman."
28. And that provides, under the law, a valid and legal ground for termination of pregnancy. If the woman has suffered an unwanted pregnancy, it can be terminated and this is legal and permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
29. The cause of action for claiming compensation in cases of failed sterilization operation arises on account of negligence of the surgeon and not on account of child birth.Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed.
Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined
30. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the judgments and the decrees passed by the High Court and courts below cannot be sustained. The trial court has proceeded to pass a decree of damages in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents solely on the ground that in spite of the plaintiff-respondent No.2 having undergone a sterilization operation, she became pregnant. No finding has been arrived at that will hold the operating surgeon or its employer __ the State, liable for damages either in contract or in tort. The error committed by the trial court, though pointed out to the first appellate court and the High Court, has been overlooked. The appeal has, therefore, to be allowed and the judgment and decree under appeal have to be set aside.
17. In the case of Raja Rani (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated principle laid down earlier.
18. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sajjanben Bharatsinh Rathod (supra) followed dictum stated aforesaid and also referred judgment in the case of Kusum Sharma v/s. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Center [2010 (3) SCC 480] and in para 17 held as under :-
"17. At this stage, it would be relevant to also refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kusum Sharma (supra), where the Hon'ble Apex Court at Para No.94 had inter alia enumerated certain principles to be kept in view while dealing with a case of medical negligence. The said Paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit. "(94.) On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:-
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success forthe patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals."
19. In reason of above and applying binding ratio to the facts of case, it is unquestionably settled that compensation for an unwanted pregnancy resulting from a sterilization operation cannot be granted. It can also be observed that sterilization operation are always subject to some exigency like (I) re- canalisation of the tube (2) formation of tubo pertioneal fistula (3) incomplete division of tube in pomroy's technique (4)presence of very early clinically non detectable pregnancy (5) one failure in 400 cases reported in literature under expert hand.
20. In view of aforesaid ratio, I am of the opinion that in case of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child carried from failure of sterilization operation, compensation cannot be granted unless medical negligence is duly established."
12. Applying the aforesaid ratio and principle, I am of the considered opinion that in case of unwanted child or unwanted pregnancy carried from failure of sterelised operation, compensation cannot be granted unless medical negligence is truly established. In the present case, learned advocate appearing for the original plaintiff Mr. Jenil Shah failed to bring a single evidence led by the plaintiff to prove the medical negligence of the doctor who has performed the sterilisation operation. Moreover, it is case where plaintiff has not asked compensation for failure of sterlisation operation but asked compensation for birth of a child, which Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined according to her was unwanted. Plaintiff, if thinks that child born was unwanted, she could have aborted once she came to know that she has conceived child. She instead of following the procedure continued with pregnancy, resulting in birth of a child. Thus, such child does not fall to defination of unwanted child. In the aforesaid circumstances, answering the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant, since the Second Appeal deserves consideration and requires to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
13. It is hereby clarified that if any amount already paid to the plaintiff towards the compensation shall not be recovered but if any amount is deposited before the learned Trial Court by any judgment debtor, the same shall be refunded to the said judgment debtor/defendant with a accrued interest if any within four weeks from today.
14. At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. Shastri brought to the notice of this Court that Jilla Panchayat, Panchmahal has deposited Rs. 1,54,000/- before the learned Senior Civil Court, Panchmahal in Special Suit No. 36 of 1991 and Special Dharkhast No. 37 of 1998 by the receipt No. C No. 0177010. Thus, the Registry of the learned Trial Court is hereby directed to return the said Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SA/149/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/02/2026 undefined amount with accrued interest if any, to the Jilla Panchayat, Panchamahal within four weeks from today from the receipt of this order.
15. R & P to be send back forthwith.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MARY VADAKKAN Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by MARY VADAKKAN(HC00204) on Mon Feb 23 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 14 02:59:20 IST 2026