You are on page 1of 4

SVKMS

NMIMS SCHOOL OF LAW

SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED ON;


LIABILITY OF STATE FOR FAILED STERILIZATION OPERATIONS
IN COMPLIANCE TO THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE MARKING
SCHEME, FOR TRIMESTER VII OF 2016-2017, IN THE SUBJECT OF:
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE AND PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATIONS
SUBMITTED TO FACULTY:
ISHNOOR ARORA

SUBMITTED BY:
NIKET JAIN
B.B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)
YEAR III
ROLL NO. A035

RECEIVED BY: _____________________


ON DATE: __________ TIME: _________

SYNOPSIS
LIABILITY OF STATE FOR FAILED
STERILIZATION OPERATIONS

RESEARCH PROBLEM
As seen in the Shiv Ram case1, one of the respondents underwent a tubectomy
operation through the publicity campaign of the Family Welfare Department.
The Apex Court held that the respondents were not entitled to any sort of
compensation from the State Government on account of unwanted pregnancy.
Therefore, even after being assured that the respondent would not get pregnant,
no sort of compensation was awarded for the contrary.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Whether all failed sterilization operations amount to medical negligence
under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
What are the main principles and reasonings to be considered before
determining if a State is liable for a failed sterilization operation?
How has the Court interpreted the relevant statutes while determining the
above cases?
Whether every victim of a failed sterilization operation is entitled to a
compensation.
Whether the decisions taken by the judiciary on the above matter are
good judgments.
Whether there is a need for amendment of the existing law.
1 2005 (7) SCC 1; AIR 2005 SC 3280.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Public policy requires us to hold that the birth of a child is always a blessing
to its parents and that this benefit must, as a matter of law, totally offset
concomitant financial burdensWe may take judicial notice of the fact that
raising a child from birth to maturity is a costly enterprise, and hence
injurious2
-Justice Peters, Connecticut Supreme Court
The above statement suggests that pregnancy should always be treated as a
bliss. But this same bliss also comes with several financial constraints. It is
never easy to upbring a child without severe monetary burden. If the parents
have taken necessary steps to sterilize themselves then why shouldnt they be
compensated for the failure of such an operation?

since the petitioner No.1 never wanted another child who was born due to
the negligence and callous attitude of the surgeon, who is an officer of the State,
it is the duty of the State to maintain the child.3
-Justice Raza, Allahabad High Court
The above statement makes it clear that the State is vicariously liable for the
acts of the surgeon. If the negligent attitude of the surgeon leads to a failure in
the sterilization operation, then it is clear that the couple should be compensated
for a mistake which they never committed.

2 DOCTOR HELD LIABLE AFTER FAILED STERILIZATION, Robert E. Tomasson, The


New York Times, June 6, 1982.
3 AIR 2000 AII 219 (223)

METHODOLOGY
The scope of this project is limited to subjective analysis of the decisions of the
judiciary on the liability of the State, for failed sterilization operations. This
paper deals in-depth with the stance of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code
and the interpretation of the courts on this subject. Since the paper is based on
opinions formed after in-depth analysis of the judgments dealt with, it conveys
subjectivity and may vary from the general notion of perception.
The method of research adopted in this research paper is the Doctrinal method
of research. Primary and secondary Sources of data have been used to formulate
opinions. Books and internet content constitute major part of the research and,
surveys and examinations have not been conducted for the same.

HYPOTHESIS
There is a strong need to protect the interests of the victims of failed sterilized
operations, who are seldom compensated for the same.