Failure of vasectomy does not imply negligence: High Court

Making it clear that the failure of sterilisation procedure cannot be presumed as medical negligence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside a Rs 1 lakh award granted by a lower appellate court to a couple whose fifth child was born nearly two years after a vasectomy.

Reversing the findings of Kurukshetra Additional District Judge, Justice Nidhi Gupta of the High Court observed that the lower court had failed to consider crucial facts, including the doctor’s express instructions to the man to abstain for three months post-operation, use protection, and undergo a semen analysis. “There is no proof brought on record that the plaintiff had complied with these directions,” the court noted, while holding that the plaintiffs were unable to establish that there was no carelessness on their part.

Justice Gupta observed: “A perusal of the record reveals that in a move to control the fast-rising fast rising population of India, vasectomy operations were incentivised by the government by offering payment”. The Bench also took into account a pre-operative certificate that clearly stated there would be no liability in case of procedure failure. Referring to medical data, the court reiterated that vasectomy failure, though rare—with a rate ranging from 0.3 per cent to 9 per cent —did not automatically amount to medical negligence. “The plaintiffs fell in that rare bracket. This would not imply any negligence on part of the doctor,” the judgment observed.

Justice Gupta further found that the claim of the pregnancy being unwanted was not backed by any medical evidence to explain why it was not terminated. It was contended that the woman was medically unfit for termination, but her treating doctor never corroborated this claim. “Even she never attempted to get the pregnancy removed,” the Court remarked.

Finding no negligence in the conduct of the surgeon – who had performed thousands of such operations, and pointing to the absence of any conclusive proof of post-operative compliance – the Court allowed the State’s appeals filed in the matter.