Orissa High Court Orders State To Disburse ₹30K Compensation To Woman Who Conceived Even After Undergoing Sterilization
The Orissa High Court has ordered the State to grant rupees thirty thousand compensation to a woman, who conceived and delivered a baby girl even after undergoing a sterilization surgery hosted by the State Government.While granting relief to the lady, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ordered –“…considering the poor economic status of the petitioner and ...
The Orissa High Court has ordered the State to grant rupees thirty thousand compensation to a woman, who conceived and delivered a baby girl even after undergoing a sterilization surgery hosted by the State Government.
While granting relief to the lady, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi ordered –
“…considering the poor economic status of the petitioner and the concession given by the Opp. Parties, this Court deems it apposite to grant Rs.30,000/- in favour of the petitioner as compensation. Accordingly, the Opp. Parties/ State is directed to pay the said amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of presentation of this order before the appropriate authority.”
Case Background
The petitioner's family belongs to the below poverty line (BPL) category and they depend solely on the daily wages for livelihood. The petitioner and her husband had two daughters out of their wedlock.
Being encouraged by the Department of Health, Government of Odisha, the petitioner opted for the family planning/sterilization surgery (tubectomy) and the doctors present at the public health centre assured her that she would not conceive anymore.
However, after five months of the surgery, she got symptoms of pregnancy. Thus, she consulted a doctor who advised her to undergo urine test from which it came to light that despite of sterilization, she had conceived.
The petitioner raised the issue with the concerned authority, who accepted the negligence in the sterilization surgery. Later on, the petitioner gave birth to another female child after one year of tubectomy.
Contentions of Parties
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that such failure of the sterilization operation shows negligence on the part of the doctors and mismanagement of public funds. It was also submitted that such negligence signifies the failure of the family planning program in the State.
Further, it was vehemently pleaded that the State must provide suitable compensation amount to the petitioner not only for negligence on the part of government doctors but also for the future well-being of the newborn child.
On the other hand, the counsel for the State underlined that an amount of Rs. 30,000/- is fixed for reimbursement in case of failure of sterilization under the Family Planning Insurance Scheme. Further, he argued that the petitioner has been aggrieved only because a 'girl child' was born out of the conception.
Court's Observations
The Court, at the outset, placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v Shiv Ram & Ors. wherein it was held that no method of sterilization is 100% fool-proof and authoritative textbooks of Gynecology recognize the failure rate ranging from 0.3% to 7% depending upon the techniques.
Therein, the Court had also held that in spite of the operation having been successfully performed and without any negligence on the part of the surgeon, the sterilized woman can become pregnant due to natural causes. It also observed:
“Failure due to natural causes would not provide any ground for claim. It is for the woman who has conceived the child to go or not to go for the medical termination of pregnancy. Having gathered the knowledge of conception in spite of having undergone the sterilization operation, if the couple opts for bearing the child, it ceases to be an unwanted child. Compensation for the maintenance and upbringing of such a child cannot be claimed..”
Having regard for the above observations of the Supreme Court, Justice Panigrahi opined that the contentions of the petitioner have no foundation in law. However, taking into account the poor financial background of the petitioner, the Court granted Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.
Case Title: Smt. Moti Prava Mohanty v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 14586 of 2013
Date of Judgment: April 19, 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Swain, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Sonak Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 31