Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that medical negligence cannot be presumed solely on the basis of an unsuccessful surgical procedure. Justice Anil Kshetarpal emphasized that in the absence of allegations questioning the surgeon’s competence or claims of negligence, a claim for damages is not sustainable.
“Medical negligence cannot be inferred merely because a surgical procedure failed to deliver the desired outcome. The Supreme Court has clarified that without allegations of incompetence or negligence against the surgeon, a suit for damages cannot be upheld,” the Court stated in its order dated November 18.
The ruling came while overturning a lower court’s decision to award ₹30,000 in damages to a woman whose sterilization procedure had failed.
Case Background
The woman underwent sterilization performed by a qualified surgeon. Despite the procedure, she conceived and later filed a suit seeking ₹90,000 in compensation, along with 18% annual interest.
The trial court dismissed her claim, citing a lack of evidence proving negligence. However, the first appellate court reversed this decision, awarding ₹30,000 in damages based on the presumption of negligence due to the post-procedure pregnancy.
The State then appealed the decision in the High Court.
High Court Findings
The High Court set aside the appellate court’s judgment, noting that the woman had signed a consent form acknowledging the potential for procedure failure and explicitly waiving liability in such cases.
Justice Kshetarpal observed that the surgeon, Hardeep Sharma, testified that no guarantee of success was given, and the woman had been informed about the possibility of failure. The Court held that an unsuccessful outcome does not inherently indicate negligence.
“The first appellate court assumed negligence purely on presumption,” the High Court noted. “For damages in medical negligence cases, the claimant must provide positive evidence, including expert opinions when necessary.”
The Court allowed the State’s appeal and reinstated the trial court’s decision to dismiss the woman’s claim.
Legal Representation
Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State, while advocates Simran and Pardeep Goyal appeared on behalf of the woman.
