Unsuccessful Surgery Does Not Imply Medical Negligence: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court emphasized that in the absence of specific allegations regarding a surgeon's incompetence or any claims of negligence, a lawsuit seeking damages for medical negligence cannot proceed.

The woman had undergone sterilization surgery, performed by a qualified surgeon. Despite the procedure, she later became pregnant and filed a suit seeking ₹90,000 in compensation, along with 18% annual interest, claiming medical negligence. The trial court initially dismissed her case, noting that she had failed to provide sufficient evidence of negligence. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, presuming negligence simply because she became pregnant after sterilization, and awarded her ₹30,000 in compensation, along with 6% interest. The State filed an appeal before the High Court, challenging the decision of the first appellate court.

A Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal said, “The medical negligence cannot be assumed only because a surgical procedure has failed to achieve the desired result. The Supreme Court has held that in absence of allegation that the Surgeon was not competent to perform the surgery or the Surgeon was negligent, the suit for damages cannot be decreed,”

The Court's observations were made while overturning a lower court's decision that had awarded ₹30,000 in damages to a woman who became pregnant after undergoing a sterilization procedure.

Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok appeared for the Appellants and Advocate Simran appeared for the Respondent.

The High Court ruled in favor of the State, stating that the woman had herself admitted during her testimony that she had signed a consent form before the surgery. This form explicitly acknowledged the possibility that the sterilization procedure might fail. Moreover, the form had included a waiver of liability in case the procedure was unsuccessful.

The Court emphasized that an unsuccessful medical outcome, such as a failed sterilization, does not automatically equate to negligence. It noted that the first appellate court had presumed negligence without any concrete evidence, merely based on the fact that the woman became pregnant after the procedure. The High Court also highlighted, “The First Appellate Court has assumed negligence only on the basis of a presumption. From reading of the judgment passed by the trial Court, it is evident that the operating Doctor, Sh. Hardeep Sharma appeared as DW1 and stated that no assurance was given to the respondent regarding the success of the operation and she was apprised of the fact that sometimes there is failure of the operation, for which, no medical authority will be held responsible,”

The Court pointed out that in cases of medical negligence, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. To claim damages for negligence, the affected party must provide positive evidence, including expert testimony in relevant cases. The Court concluded that since no such evidence was presented, the first appellate court's decision was unsustainable. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's ruling, effectively denying the woman compensation.

Cause Title: Punjab State & Ors. v. Krishna Devi, [2024:PHHC:150658]

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok

Respondent: Advocates Simran and Pardeep Goyal