Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of damages alleging that she was operated upon for tubectomy on 14.12.1982 but she gave birth to a male child in the year 1986. She was again operated upon on 28.12.1986 at Civil Hospital, Rohtak but inspite of this, she gave birth to another male child on 22.6.1996. 2. The suit was contested, inter alia on the plea that a per International and National literature, chances of failure of tubectomy operation are not ruled out. Birth of a child by itself did not amount to negligence. 3. The trial Court decreed the suit but on appeal, finding of the trial Court was reversed and the suit was dismissed. Reliance was placed on the evidence of R.S. Yadav, DW-3 who performed the tubectomy operation and stated that he had taken all precautions while performing the operation and he was duly qualified. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, DW-1 who performed the second operation and stated that he had taken all precautions while performing the operation and he was duly qualified. Decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Smt. Santra, (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 790 (S.C.) and the judgments of this Court in Punjab State v. Smt. Surinder Kaur, (2000-3)127 P.L.R. 411, Smt. Ram Kali v. State of Haryana and Ors., (2002-2)131 P.L.R. 735 were distinguished on the ground that in the present case, pregnancy was not on account of negligence in performing the operation. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the decisions which were cited before the lower appellate Court supported the case of the appellant as negligence had to be presumed in every case where child was born after tubectomy operation. 5. The question as to whether parenthood can ever constitute an injury, is a subject-matter of debate world over. This subject has been analysed by Nicolette Priaulx, University of Kent, UK, in his article "Joy to the World (!(A (Healthy) Child is Born ! Re-conceptualizing Harm in Wrongful Conception", published in Social and Legal Studies, an International Journal, Volume 13, Sage Publications. In McFarlance and Anr. This subject has been analysed by Nicolette Priaulx, University of Kent, UK, in his article "Joy to the World (!(A (Healthy) Child is Born ! Re-conceptualizing Harm in Wrongful Conception", published in Social and Legal Studies, an International Journal, Volume 13, Sage Publications. In McFarlance and Anr. v. Tayside Health Board, 1999(4) All England Law Reports 961, the House of Lords surveyed the case law in different countries at length and observed at Page 972 as under:- "The doctor undertakes a duty of care in regard to the prevention of pregnancy; it does not follow that the duty includes also avoiding the costs of rearing the child if born and accepted into the family. Whereas I have no doubt that there should be compensation for the physical effects of the pregnancy and birth, including of course solatium for consequential suffering by the mother immediately following the birth. I consider that it is not fair, just or reasonable to impose on the doctor or his employer liability for the consequential responsibilities, imposed on or accepted by the parents to bring up a child. The doctor does not assume responsibility for those economic losses. If a client wants to be able to recover such costs he or she must do so by an appropriate contract." The same view has been reiterated in Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital, NHS Trust, (2002)2 All England Law Reports 177. 6 However, since the question involved in the present appeal is confined to the question whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that no negligence was involved in conducting tubectomy on the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any damages, further question as to whether damages could be claimed even if negligence was proved does not arise for consideration and need not be gone into. 7. In Smt. Santra (supra) the Apex Court considered decisions taking the view that benefits of parenthood far outweighed monetary burden in bringing up the child on the one hand and decisions taking the view that failed sterilisation attributable to medical negligence, furnished cause of action for claiming damages, on the other. It was held that having regard to legal obligation of the parents to maintain the child and when population was increasing, the doctor as well as the State must be held responsible for damages, if sterilisation operation performed was a failure on account of negligence. It was held that having regard to legal obligation of the parents to maintain the child and when population was increasing, the doctor as well as the State must be held responsible for damages, if sterilisation operation performed was a failure on account of negligence. [Para 40]. 8. As per judgment of the Apex Court, negligence is the basis to claim damages. In the said judgment, it has not been held that negligence could be presumed by mere birth of child. In the judgments of this Court in Surinder and Smt. Ram Kali (supra), negligence was held to be proved on the basis of evidence led in the said cases. No doubt, an observation was made that birth of a child would be conclusive proof of negligence. All that can be said to have been laid down is that birth of a child will place burden of proving lack of negligence on the defendant. In the present case, the defendants have examined DW-3 and DW-1 who have deposed that they were qualified and they performed operations carefully. They also filed their affidavits by way of information based on text books that failure of operation could not be ruled out in all cases. 9. In Smt. Amro v. The State of Haryana and Ors., R.S.A. No. 3828 of 2004, decided on September 23, 2004, this Court held that chances of failure of sterilisation operation are medically acknowledged. Reference was made to:- "(i) Page 459 of the Text Book of Gynaecology, including contraception, third Edition, by D.C. Datta, MBBS, M.O. (Calcutta) Professor and Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nilratan Sircar Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta 3rd Edition, wherein it was observed failure rate of minilap sterilisation is 0.1-0.3% whereas said failure rate in Laparoscopic sterilisation is 0.2-0.6%. (ii) Lindes Operative Gynaecology, sixth edition, by Richard F. Mattingly, M.D. Professor and Chairman, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and John D. Thompson, M.D. Professor and Chairman, Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Emory University, School of Medicines, Atlanta, Georia, USA, wherein it was observed in case of tubal sterilisation, even if both tubes are properly ligated, still 1 to 20 per 1000 women may conceive in the future." The lower appellate Court having recorded a finding of fact that pregnancy was not attributable to any negligence (Para 17), no interference in second appeal is called for. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.