IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.238/2023 Date of Decision: 18.09.2025 Ram Lal and another .....Appellants. Versus The Secretary (Health & Family Welfare) and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Raj Kumar Negi, Additional Advocate General. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). This Regular Second Appeal was preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kinnaur District at Rampur Bushahr in Civil Appeal registration No. 21/2023 decided on 23.5.2023 whereby the learned Appellate Court below has dismissed the appeal of the appellant and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge Anni District Kullu in Civil Suit No. 1 of 2014. 2. The parties herein shall be referred to in the same manner as they were referred to before the learned trial Court and in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 impugned judgment and decree, for the sake of convenience. The brief facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiffs, a married couple, underwent a vasectomy operation (NSV) for the plaintiff No. 1 at CHC Anni on 03.02.2008. Approximately 40 months later, the operation failed, resulting in the plaintiff No. 2 becoming pregnant, which was confirmed by a positive test at CHC Anni on 25.09.2012. A semen test on the same date also confirmed the presence of active sperm. The plaintiffs persistently requested the medical officers at CHC Anni to terminate the pregnancy but were not assisted. The plaintiff No. 2 was admitted to CHC Anni on 25.09.2012 but was discharged the next day with advice to take certain medicines, which failed to terminate the pregnancy. Upon returning for further assistance, the plaintiffs were referred to MGMSC Khaneri, where the plaintiff No. 2 was admitted from 07.10.2012 to 09.10.2012. 3. After treatment there, the plaintiffs were under the impression the pregnancy had been terminated. However, on 08.12.2012, the plaintiff No. 2 went into labour at home in a remote area and gave birth to a stillborn male child en route to the hospital. She was admitted to CHC Anni for treatment of a retained placenta and discharged the following day. The plaintiffs suffered grave mental trauma, harassment, and incurred significant medical and other expenses. The plaintiff No. 2 required continued treatment at various hospitals, including IGMC Shimla. The plaintiff No. 1 had received a sum of Rs. 30,000/- under a family planning insurance scheme for the 3 failure of the sterilization but claimed this was inadequate. A legal notice was served upon the defendants, who acknowledged it but failed to provide further compensation, leading to the filing of the suit. 4. The defendants contested the suit, denying negligence and asserting that the plaintiffs were given proper advice and care. They claimed the plaintiffs were instructed to visit a gynecologist at MGMSC Rampur immediately but delayed doing so. They denied prescribing medicine for termination at CHC Anni and stated that any complications were due to the plaintiffs not following medical instructions. They further denied that the baby was stillborn and asserted that the plaintiff No. 2 received the best possible treatment. The defendants highlighted that the plaintiff No. 1 was specifically instructed to undergo a sperm test after three months to confirm the operation's success, which he did not do, and that the payment of Rs. 30,000/- was accepted as a full and final settlement of their claim. 5. The learned trial court dismissed the suit, deciding that the defendants were not negligent (Issue No. 1) and that the suit was not maintainable due to the acceptance of the payment (Issue No. 3), while deciding other issues in favour of the defendants. In the first appeal, the appellants argued that the judgement was contrary to law and facts; that the courts below failed to appreciate the evidence proving medical negligence; that the acceptance of Rs. 30,000/- was not a full and final settlement as the plaintiffs were entitled to further compensation for the trauma and additional expenses; that the defendants admitted the 4 failure of the operation in their reply to the notice; and that the courts erred in not considering the continued suffering and treatment required by the plaintiff No. 2. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's findings. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgements. 7. The core of the appellants' case rests on establishing medical negligence, a tortious liability that places a strict and heavy burden of proof upon the plaintiffs. The legal parameters for medical negligence established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1, particularly the principle that a professional is liable only if found not to possess the requisite skill or fails to exercise the skill possessed with reasonable competence. They have failed to discharge this burden on both counts. 8. Critically, the appellants did not allege or lead any evidence to demonstrate that the treating surgeons were unqualified or incompetent. In fact, the doctors responsible for the procedures were necessary parties to the suit but were neither named nor impleaded, rendering the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The NSV operation was performed using a standard technique, and its failure after 40 months was due to spontaneous recanalization known biological risk with a documented failure rate of 1–2%. The mere occurrence of this known event does not establish a lack of skill. 5 9. Furthermore, the appellants failed to prove any breach of the standard of care. The evidence confirms that plaintiff No. 1 did not undergo the mandatory seminal examination three months post- operation, contrary to standard protocol and medical advice. This non- compliance was a significant intervening act that prevented early detection of the failure. Moreover, the claim that the appellants were denied care at CHC Anni is belied by the evidence, which shows they were appropriately referred to a higher centre with gynaecological facilities for safe termination of pregnancy. The MTP was performed using standard methods, and the complication of retained placentas explained by DW-1 is a known risk, not proof of negligence. The subsequent health issues alleged in 2014 were not substantiated by any medical evidence linking them to the events of 2012. 10. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 18th September, 2025 (Tarun)