Facts
Rihana underwent tubectomy at Arcot Government Hospital in 2018 but conceived and gave birth in 2022.
Source reference: p. 2–6After her husband’s death in 2023, she sought compensation, alleging that the first sterilisation had failed because of negligence.
Source reference: p. 2–6The State relied on her consent form, the recognised risk of sterilisation failure, and her alleged refusal of termination.
Source reference: p. 2–6A Single Judge awarded her ₹3,00,000 and directed the State to fund her fourth child’s education.
Source reference: p. 2–6The State appealed.
Source reference: p. 2–6Issues
Whether a writ court could determine disputed allegations of medical negligence and award compensation under Article 226
Source reference: p. 6If not, whether Rihana was entitled to compensation under the applicable sterilisation-failure scheme and could pursue a larger claim before a civil court.
Source reference: p. 13–14Law Applied
Under Article 226, a writ court may decline to decide a claim where a genuine and substantive dispute of fact requires evidence, cross-examination, or expert opinion; the mere existence of a factual dispute is not sufficient unless it requires such a deeper inquiry.
Source reference: p. 9–11State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram, (2005) 7 SCC 12, and Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh, (2021) 10 SCC 291, establish that sterilisation failure or unsuccessful treatment does not, by itself, prove negligence; the claimant bears the burden of establishing negligence.
Source reference: p. 12–13Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v. Rekha & Ors., 2026 INSC 847, supports referring fact-intensive compensation claims to the appropriate forum.
Source reference: p. 9–11Under G.O.(Ms) No. 173, Health and Family Welfare (R2) Department, dated 31 May 2022, compensation for sterilisation failure is ₹60,000.
Source reference: p. 13–14Reasoning
The State raised material factual questions about the standard of care during surgery, possible natural recanalisation, Rihana’s reporting of a missed period, the alleged advice to terminate the pregnancy, and the effect of her consent form.
Source reference: p. 10–11Resolving those issues would require hospital records, medical evidence, and potentially cross-examination, making the claim unsuitable for determination on affidavits in writ proceedings.
Source reference: p. 10–11The Single Judge also erred in presuming negligence from the pregnancy and shifting the burden to the State, contrary to Shiv Ram and Harish Kumar Khurana.
Source reference: p. 12The Court therefore set aside the writ award but recognised Rihana’s entitlement to the scheme’s fixed compensation, without expressing any view on negligence.
Source reference: p. 13–14Holding
The appeal was disposed of by setting aside the ₹3,00,000 award and the directions for free education and educational expenses.
The State was directed to pay Rihana ₹60,000 within four weeks.
Source reference: p. 14–15She was granted liberty to bring a civil claim for any additional compensation within eight weeks; time spent prosecuting the writ petition and appeal is to be excluded when computing limitation.
Source reference: p. 14–15The civil court must decide any such claim independently, and the scheme payment may be taken into account in determining the final award.
Source reference: p. 14–15Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Linked provisions open on LawLens.
the order (alias, unresolved)1
Original Court PDF
The Secretary to GovernmentvsRihana
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
