Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Harwinder Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 4 February, 2026

RAVINDER DHANIA
2026.02.06 17:42

2O2ZS: PARC ST 7A

201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-3285-2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision:04.02.2026
HARWINDER KAUR

.... Appellant

Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL

Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate
for the appellant.

Dr. D. S. Lamba, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

IOIN-2-RSA-3285-2003 The present JOIN has been put up by the Registry before this Court with the report of mediation centre that present case could not be settled. With the consent of learned counsel for the both the parties, main case is taken on board today itself.

Accordingly, IOIN stands disposed of.

Plaintiff-appellant is aggrieved by impugned judgment and decree dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which first appeal preferred by respondent-defendant was accepted and judgment and decree dated 10.09.2001 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Fatehgarh Sahib vide which suit of plaintiff was decreed and plaintiff was found entitled to recovery of Rs.50,000/- was set aside. I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.02.06 17:42 RSA-3285-2003 -2-

2. The simple case of plaintiff-appellant was that she is labourer woman aged 27 years and after the birth of two children she had opted for sterilization. She had undergone sterilization operation on 24.11.1990. However, the said sterilization operation had not succeeded and she had given birth to a male child on 12.12.1993 despite having undergone sterilization. She accordingly, had sought amount of Rs.1,15,000/- as damages. On the other hand, case of respondent-State was that the sterilization was conducted by the doctor with all due care, without there being any fault or negligence on the part of doctor. It was further contended that prior to the operation, the chances of failure were duly explained to the plaintiff-appellant and she had understood the same and had agreed by executing an undertaking (Exhibit D1) that she would not seek damages in case, operation fails. Therefore, she is not entitled to seek any compensation.

3. Learned Court of First Instance relying upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Santra, 2000 (2) RCR (Civil) 739 had concluded that plaintiff-appellant is entitled to compensation/damages and had awarded Rs.50,000/- as damages. However, learned Appellate Court after going through the evidence concluded that the key factor i.e. negligence on the part of doctor has not been proved. Therefore, case of plaintiff had to fail and accordingly, the appeal was accepted by dismissing the suit of plaintiff-appellant.

4. As far as principle of law is concerned the same is duly laid down in judgment titled as State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Santra (supra) cited and relied by learned Court of First Instance as well as cited by learned counsel for appellant during course of argument before this Court and there is no doubt about it. It is its applicability to the facts and circumstances of I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.02.06 17:42 RSA-3285-2003 -3- the present case which needs to be determined. Undoubtedly, in a case, where negligence on the part of doctors is shown/proved, in such case, the person who has been operated upon would be entitled to damages despite having given undertaking that she/he would not seek damages. It is worth noticing that in case titled as State of Haryana Vs. Smt. Santra (supra) it was found that doctor had operated negligently. It was noted that out of two fallopian tubes only one was obstructed leaving scope of pregnancy. The estoppel on the basis of undertaking against the patient would not apply in a case of medical negligence.

5. Therefore, in the present case, it would be necessary to note down whether the operation has failed on account of any medical negligence on the part of doctor. If the appellant is able to show that the failure of operation was due to negligence of doctor, then the appellant-plaintiff would be entitled to compensation. However, if no negligence is shown/proved or established on the part of doctor in that case, appellant-plaintiff shall not be entitled to any compensation as she would be bound by the undertaking given by her vide Exhibit D1.

6. It must be kept in mind that a doctor cannot replace God, and every medical procedure has its own limitations in terms of its success. All medical procedures undertaken by doctor, in all eventualities, can or has never succeeded to the extent of 100%. Despite taking all due diligence and care, an operation can still fail, as several factors are involved in the success of operation. Some of these factors include post-operative diet, post- operative care of the patients, body structure and natural response of each individual, which varies from person to person. Therefore, despite all due care an operation can still fail. However, if there is a negligence on the part I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.02.06 17:42 RSA-3285-2003 -4- of doctor then in that case, doctor/his employer would be liable to compensate the person who had suffered damages.

7. In present case, since, it was the plaintiff who claimed that operation had failed, it was her duty to prove that operation had failed on account of negligence on the part of doctor.

8. Admittedly, no evidence was led by appellant-plaintiff showing negligence on the part of doctors except for oral assertions that operation had failed. Perusal of judgment passed by learned Court of First Instance dated 10.09.2001 goes to show that learned Court of First Instance has wrongly placed the onus to prove negligence upon the defendants. It was the duty of plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of respondents. However, learned Court of First Instance has wrongly placed it on the defendants and concluded that since, defendants have not proved that they were not negligent, therefore, had decreed the suit. This error committed by learned Court of First Instance was rightly corrected by learned First Appellate Court. There is no evidence on record from which it can be concluded that operation had failed on account of any negligence on the part of doctors or any of the respondents who are facing present case. In absence of proof of negligence, mere failure of family planning operation would not entitle a patient to compensation. Rather in the present case, plaintiff-appellant would be estopped by her own undertaking where she has admitted that she will not be entitled to seek damages if the operation does not succeed which in turn goes to show that appellant-plaintiff was well-aware that there was a possibility of failure of operation. Therefore, the learned First Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal preferred by State. No ground for interference is made out.

9. Present appeal is dismissed accordingly.

10. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 04.02.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned_ : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.02.06 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document