Division Bench overturns Single Judge's Rs. 3 lakh award for alleged medical negligence, directs compensation under Family Planning Indemnity Scheme, and emphasizes civil court as proper forum for negligence claims.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, ruled on the scope of compensation in cases of sterilisation failure and medical negligence claims under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The appeal was filed by the Secretary to Government, Health Department, Tamil Nadu, against a Single Judge's order granting Rs. 3,00,000 compensation and free education to Rihana, the respondent, who conceived after undergoing tubectomy sterilisation at Arcot Government Hospital. The Single Judge had presumed negligence on the part of the hospital merely because pregnancy occurred post-sterilisation, placing the burden on the State to prove absence of fault.
The Division Bench overturned this decision, holding that a mere failure of sterilisation and subsequent pregnancy does not automatically imply medical negligence. It underscored that medical negligence involves disputed questions of fact, requiring detailed evidence, hospital records, expert testimony, and cross-examination, which are beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Therefore, the High Court cannot adjudicate such claims in writ proceedings.
The Court referred to the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme, introduced by the Government of India and adopted by the Tamil Nadu government through G.O.(Ms) No.173 dated 31.05.2022, which fixes compensation at Rs. 60,000 for sterilisation failure. The Court directed the appellants to pay this statutory amount within four weeks.
Importantly, the Court clarified that if the respondent seeks compensation exceeding the scheme amount on grounds of proven negligence, she may pursue a civil suit in the appropriate forum. The time consumed in the writ proceedings and appeal will be excluded for limitation purposes. The civil court will independently evaluate the evidence without being influenced by this judgment or the earlier order.
The judgment reiterates the Supreme Court's stance that a claim in tort for medical negligence cannot succeed without proof of fault and that courts exercising writ jurisdiction should refrain from deciding disputed factual issues. The decision also aligns with precedents such as State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram (2005) and Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd v. Rekha (2026), emphasizing the need for a proper trial to determine medical negligence.
While expressing sympathy for the respondent's personal hardships, including widowhood and single motherhood, the Court maintained that such considerations cannot substitute for legal proof of negligence. The directions for free education and higher compensation granted by the Single Judge were set aside.
This judgment provides clarity on the procedural and substantive limits of writ jurisdiction in medical negligence claims related to sterilisation failures. It also affirms the statutory framework for compensation under the Family Planning Indemnity Scheme, balancing the rights of patients with the need for evidence-based adjudication.
Bottom Line:
Medical negligence - Failure of sterilisation - In writ jurisdiction under Article 226, High Court cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact relating to alleged medical negligence and award tortious compensation merely because pregnancy occurred after sterilisation - Claimant is entitled to compensation under Family Planning Indemnity Scheme/G.O. for sterilisation failure, and any higher claim based on negligence must be pursued before competent Civil Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Family Planning Indemnity Scheme (G.O.(Ms) No.173, Health and Family Welfare Department, Tamil Nadu, dated 31.05.2022)
