RSA No.3543 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3543 of 2008 Date of decision:19.5.2011 Angrejo Devi petitioner vs State of Haryana respondent Present:- Mr. AS Sullar, Advocate Mr. RK Garg, Addl.A.G.Hry M.M.S.BEDI Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plaintiff-appellant and her husband have been able to establish that an assurance had been given by the Doctor performing the operation of tubectomy that it was 100% fool proof to prevent pregnancy . Learned State counsel has relied upon State of Punjab vs Shiv Ram and others (2005) 7 SCC 1 and State of Haryana and others vs Raj Rani (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 22. In State of Haryana and others vs Raj Rani (supra) held as follows:- “ Childbirth in spite of a sterilization operation can occur due to negligence of the doctor in performance of the operation, or due to certain natural causes such as spontaneous recanalisation. The doctor can be held liable only in cases where the failure of the operation is attributable to his negligence and not otherwise. Several textbooks on medical negligence have recognised the percentage of failure of the sterilization operation due to natural causes to be varying RSA No.3543 of 2008 2 between 0.3% to 7% depending on the techniques or method chosen for performing the surgery out of the several prevalent and acceptable ones in medical science. The fallopian tubes which are cut and sealed may reunite and the woman may conceive though the surgery was performed by a proficient doctor successfully by adopting a technique recognised by medical science. Thus, the pregnancy can be for reasons dehors any negligence of the surgeon. In the absence of proof of negligence, the surgeon cannot be held liable to pay compensation. Then the question of State being held vicariously liable also would not arise.” In view of the above said judgments, the circumstances of the present case are fully covered by the directions of the Apex court. Following the ratio of the above said judgments, the plaintiff- appellant is not entitled for any compensation for failure of sterilization operation on account of medical negligence. Dismissed. May 19 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE