STATE OF GUJARAT vs CHANDUBEN HEMUBHAI GOHEL
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3681 of 2010
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
CHANDUBEN HEMUBHAI GOHEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DIXA PANDYA AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR NAYAN D PAREKH(5010) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 10/07/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The Appellants – State has filed the present appeal
challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2009
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Surendranagar, in Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2003, whereby
the learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff
and directed the defendants - State and its instrumentalities
to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the plaintiff, together
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on amount of
Rs.3,90,000/- from the date of filing of Civil Misc. Application
No.58 of 2000 till realization. The learned Trial Court further
directed that 50% of the decretal amount be disbursed to the
plaintiff and the remaining 50% be deposited in any
Nationalised Bank, from which, the plaintiff shall be entitled
to receive the periodical interest.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff,
under the Government Family Welfare Scheme, underwent a
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
family planning operation at the Government Hospital,
Wadhwan, on 01.07.1999. According to the plaintiff, on the
day following the operation, she developed symptoms of
paralysis, rendering her unable to walk, sit, or perform her
day-to-day activities. It is the case of the plaintiff that she
became virtually bedridden and helpless.
2.1 At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was
aged about 35 years and was approximately 31 years old
when she underwent the family planning operation. She was
earning about Rs.2,000/- per month. On account of the alleged
paralysis suffered by her, she became incapable of carrying on
any work.
2.2 On the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff claimed
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest.
3. The crux of the written statement filed by the
defendants, apart from denying the averments made in the
plaint, is that the State Government and its instrumentalities
denied that the plaintiff developed paraplegia or any paralytic
condition in the lower limbs as a consequence of the family
planning operation. It was further pleaded that all due care
and necessary precautions were taken while performing the
operation and the operation was successful. It was also
contended that the plaintiff developed paralytic symptoms due
to some other medical condition unrelated to the surgery.
Therefore, the defendants denied any negligence on their part
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
or any liability to pay compensation.
4. The learned Trial Court framed the issues at
Exhibit 16. Thereafter, both parties were permitted to lead the
evidence, and upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
the learned Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and
decree in the aforesaid terms.
5. Heard learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya appearing for
the original defendants – State - appellants and learned
advocate Mr. Nayan Parekh appearing for the original plaintiff
- respondent
6. By an order dated 09.06.2026, this Court referred
the plaintiff to the Medical Board at Civil Hospital, Asarwa,
Ahmedabad, to ascertain whether there was any nexus
between the family planning operation undergone by the
plaintiff and the paralysis allegedly suffered by her. The
Medical Board was directed to submit its report to this Court.
Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff appeared before the Medical
Board and underwent medical examination. The Medical
Board submitted its report in a sealed cover to learned AGP.
The learned AGP tendered the sealed cover before this Court.
The sealed cover was opened in open Court, and the report
was taken on record. A copy thereof was furnished to the
learned advocate appearing for the original plaintiff.
7. The Medical Board comprised the Professor of the
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the Professor of
the Department of Anaesthesia and the Professor of the
Department of Neuromedicine, B.J. Medical College and Civil
Hospital, Ahmedabad. The report of the Medical Board,
containing the summary of events, present medical
evaluation, and final opinion, reads as under:
SUMMARY OF EVENTS (FROM MEDICAL RECORDS
PROVIDED)
She presented at Wadhvan CHC on 01/07/1999 for
undergoing tubal ligation operation. On reading her
documents she has been assessed pre operatively by doctor
on duty and consent for TL has also been taken.
She has been posted for bilateral abdominal TL under
pre-medication and local anesthesia on Dt-01/07/1999. She
has also been examined in post operative period and she was
found to be stable.
On dt-02/07/1999 she was found to have both lower
limb weakness for which physician Dr.Lakum's opinion was
taken. A provisional diagnosis of paraplegia was made for
which she was referred to Civil Hospital Ahmedabad for
Neurophysician opinion.
At this point of care all other parameters were normal.
She has been referred to civil hospital. Ahmedabad with a
referral note on Dt-02/07/1999 "Lower limb paraplegia in
case of history of abdo TL in local before 01 day".
She was admitted at civil hospital Ahmedabad and
further evaluation and treatment was done for approximately
14 days (03/07/1999 to 17/07/1999).
Here a panel of doctors Physician, Neurophysician,
Gynecologist and Neurosurgeon had examined her. A
diagnosis of Acute Transverse Myelitis was made and
treatment was given accordingly.
As per the documents Gynecologist had also examined
but No Gynec treatment was required. Hence in combined
care with Neurophysician she was treated.
Her X-ray dorsal spine D5, 6, 7 was taken and CSF
examination was done which were found normal.
MRI of dorsal spine suggestive of epidural collection
at dorsolateral aspect of upper dorsal spinal cord DI & D3-4
level & change of myelitis at C5 D2 level.
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
Clinical diagnosis of paraplegia (power grade 0 to 1)
was made and she was treated conservatively as per the
discharge card available.
CONSIDERING HER PRESENT MEDICAL EVALUATION
(ΟΝ 03/07/2026)
At present she is aged 56 years and is residing at
Khodiyar nagar Rajkot.
She is accompanied with her daughter Shital
Hemubhai and Husband Hemubhai Gohel.
A combined history is taken from the above 03
persons presented to us as she does not recall much. She
has difficulty in walking with recurrent falls. No Gynec
complaints at present. History of midline neck swelling
since last 06 months for which no treatment is taken.
Menopausal since 02 years. Her Gynec examination is
found normal.
Neck swelling of approximately 5 X 6 cm has been
examined by General Surgeon and ENT Consultant on duty
for which she has been advised further investigation and
treatment.
Her neurological assessment is done by
Neurophysician and Neurosurgeon both. MRI cervico dorsal
spine with whole spine screening is suggestive of
degenerative changes at present with No definite intrinsic
cord abnormality.
To rule out left shoulder pathology Orthopedician has
examined her and on X-ray it is found normal.
Her surgery was performed under Pre-medication and
local anesthesia in 1999. As per medical documents
provided no detailed anesthetic notes are found.
As per Anesthetist Opinion in our panel there are no
anesthesia related events which had happened during the
procedure at that time.
CONCLUDING OPINION
The panel of doctors after thorough clinical
assessment and investigation is of the opinion that there is
No link between the Abdominal Tubal Ligation Operation
and Paraplegia (Paralysis) suffered by her at that point of
time.
The Paralysis suffered by her is not due to the Family
Planning Operation.
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
8. In the background of the aforesaid expert opinion,
it would be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by
the learned Trial Court. The learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Surendranagar, framed the issues at Exhibit
16, which read as under:
(1) Whether the plaintiff suffers from any permanent
physical disability ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the said
permanent physical disability arose out of the
negligence committed during the family planning
operation ?
2A. Whether the Defendant No. 3 proves that he/she
was not present at the time of operation of the
Plaintiff and therefore, whether the suit suffers from
the defect of misjoinder of Parties ?
(3) Whether the permanent physical disability
sustained by the Plaintiff was caused due to the
negligence of the Defendants ?
(4) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the relief
amount as prayed for, along with interest and costs, from the
Defendants ?
5) What order and decree ?
9. Issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 answered in affirmative. Issue
Nos.2A, 4 and 5 answered accordingly.
10. It appears that, in support of her case, the plaintiff
examined herself at Ex. 62 and also examined her husband,
Hemubhai, at Ex. 72. Exhibits 39 to 48 comprise office copies
of the legal notices along with the postal acknowledgements.
Exhibits 79 and 80 consist of the advisory card issued by the
Neurosurgeon regarding the treatment administered to the
plaintiff and the MRI report issued by Gujarat Imaging Centre
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
pertaining to the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, oral
evidence was led at Exs. 86, 92 and 94. The defendants also
produced on record the orthopaedic case papers of the
plaintiff, the indoor patient case papers, the application for
family planning, the letter addressed by the Medical Officer to
the Superintendent of the Community Health Centre, and the
xerox copies of the entire treatment record of the plaintiff
during her admission as an indoor patient at Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad.
11. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciation of the
oral as well as documentary evidence on record, drew an
inference that since the plaintiff developed symptoms of
paralysis on the very next day of the family planning
operation, it could be presumed that the operation had
adversely affected her body and had resulted in paralysis of
her lower limbs. The learned Trial Court further observed
that, prior to the family planning operation, the plaintiff was
able to carry out her normal activities, whereas after the
operation she became incapable of performing her daily
chores on account of the paralytic condition. On that basis,
the learned Trial Court concluded that there existed a nexus
between the family planning operation and the paralysis
suffered by the plaintiff. Consequently, while assessing the
compensation, the learned Trial Court referred to certain
judicial pronouncements and also considered the condition
and quality of life of the plaintiff after the onset of paralysis.
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
12. In the aforesaid conspectus, the principal question
that arises for consideration is whether the plaintiff has
successfully established that there exists a causal nexus
between the family planning operation and the paralysis
suffered by her. If the answer is in the affirmative, the further
question would be whether the paralysis was caused due to
the negligence of the State or its instrumentalities.
13. Before examining the aforesaid issue, it deserves to
be observed that this Court has every sympathy for the
plaintiff, who, at a young age, suffered permanent disability
and has since been compelled to live a life of pain, trauma,
and agony. Her lower limbs became functionally useless.
However, sympathy alone cannot form the basis for awarding
compensation. A plaintiff seeking compensation on the ground
of medical negligence is required to establish, first, that the
family planning operation resulted in the paralysis, and
secondly, that such paralysis was attributable to the
negligence or lack of due care on the part of the doctors or
other medical personnel, who performed the operation.
14. The report submitted by the Medical Board
categorically states that there is no causal relationship
between the abdominal tubal ligation operation and the
paraplegia suffered by the plaintiff. The report further records
that the MRI of the dorsal spine revealed an epidural
collection along the dorsolateral aspect of the upper dorsal
spinal cord at the D1 to D3–D4 levels, along with changes
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
suggestive of myelitis at the C5 to D2 level, which was the
underlying cause of the paraplegia. The Medical Board has
unequivocally opined that the said medical condition had no
connection whatsoever with the family planning operation.
15. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the family
planning operation had failed, nor is it her case that she
suffered any complication arising out of the administration of
anaesthesia. The record reveals that on 01.07.1999, the
plaintiff underwent bilateral abdominal tubal ligation under
premedication and local anaesthesia. In the immediate post-
operative period, her condition was found to be stable. On the
second day following the operation, she developed weakness
in both lower limbs, whereupon the attending physician
suspected the development of paraplegia. She was, therefore,
referred to Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, for evaluation by a
Neurophysician. At the relevant time, all her other clinical
parameters were found to be normal. She remained admitted
at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, for about fourteen days, where
she was diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis and treated
accordingly. Thus, the medical evidence clearly establishes
that the development of paraplegia was independent of the
family planning operation. The plaintiff had undergone the
procedure under local anaesthesia and not under general
anaesthesia. Therefore, there was no possibility of the
paraplegia having been caused either by the surgical
procedure itself or by the administration of local anaesthesia.
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
16. These crucial aspects have not been properly
considered or discussed by the learned Trial Court while
delivering the impugned judgment. Instead, the learned Trial
Court merely relied upon the MRI report, without correctly
appreciating or interpreting its medical findings. It further
appears that the complete medical record of Civil Hospital,
Ahmedabad, was available before the learned Trial Court.
However, in its anxiety to award compensation to the plaintiff,
the learned Trial Court overlooked the medical evidence
produced by the defendants from Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad.
17. In the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial
Court committed a grave error in decreeing the suit in favour
of the plaintiff. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be
allowed and is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree
dated 23.09.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Surendranagar, in Special Civil Suit No.89 of 2003 are
hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, Special Civil Suit
No.89 of 2003 stands dismissed. Decree be drawn
accordingly.
18. It is clarified that, pursuant to the impugned
judgment and decree, 50% of the decretal amount had already
been disbursed to the plaintiff, and she was also permitted to
withdraw the interest accrued on the remaining 50% of the
amount deposited in a nationalised bank.
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026
C/FA/3681/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026
19. Learned AGP has submitted that defendants - State
has deposited a total sum of Rs.7,46,299/-, out of which, the
plaintiff has withdrawn only Rs.2,33,999/-. The balance
amount of approximately Rs.5,00,000/- continues to remain
invested in a fixed deposit.
20. Since the learned Trial Court had already
permitted the plaintiff to withdraw 50% of the decretal
amount, the plaintiff shall further be entitled to receive an
additional amount of Rs.1,39,150/- together with the entire
interest accrued on the fixed deposit till the date of
disbursement. The balance amount shall be refunded to the
State Government.
21. The learned Trial Court shall act in accordance
with the aforesaid directions while disbursing the amount.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MANOJ
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by MANOJ KUMAR(HC01092) on Wed Jul 15 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 15 14:07:32 IST 2026