JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J. This second appeal, preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009, passed by Additional District Judge/ Fast Track Court, II, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2007, whereby said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007, passed by the trial court [I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun] in Suit No. 435 of 2003 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 435 of 2003 was instituted by the present appellant (Meena Devi) against respondents pleading that she underwent Sterilization operation on 30.03.1996, but in June 1997, she came to know that she was carrying pregnancy, after she got anemic. On this, she gave notice dated 18.06.1997, through his advocate to the defendants claiming damages of ` one lac. When no response was given by the defendants, the plaintiff instituted suit as a pauper for damages amounting ` one lac alleging that the plaintiff has suffered on account of negligence of the part of surgeon. 4. The defendant no. 1 (State of Uttarakhand) though noticed, but did not contest the suit before the trial court, and as against said party suit proceeded ex-parte. On the other hand, defendant no. 2 Dr. O.P. Kandari filed his written statement and contested the suit. He pleaded that he was not negligent in performing the operation. It was further pleaded by him that the plaintiff knew at the time of the operation, and she was made known to the fact that such operations at times are unsuccessful for which the medical officer concerned shall not be responsible. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- (i) Whether the defendant no. 2 conducted sterilization operation of the plaintiff with negligence? (ii) Whether plaintiff’s fifth child born due to the negligence on the part of the defendant no. 2? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by time? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for compliance of service of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (v) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the defendant no. 2? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by time? (iv) Whether the suit is bad for compliance of service of notice under section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908? (v) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties found that the defendant no. 2 was not negligent in performing the sterilization operation, and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 30.07.2007, passed by I Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in Suit No. 435 of 2003, Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2007, was filed by the plaintiff before the lower appellate court which also concurred with the view taken by the trial court, and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009, passed in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 2007, this second appeal was filed by the plaintiff. 7. The second appeal was admitted on 04.06.2010, on the following substantial question of law: Whether the negligence committed by the opposite parties could be defeated by filling up the form by the appellant on the prescribed formant, which she was unable to understand being an illiterate woman? 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff underwent sterilization operation on 30.06.1996, at the hands of respondent no. 2 Dr. O.P. Kandari in Doiwala, Dehradun. It is also not disputed that after the plaintiff underwent the operation, she conceived a child (fifth child) in the year 1997. The dispute between the parties is as to the fact if the respondent no. 2 is negligent in performing the operation. The defence taken by the defendant no. 2 is that before the sterilization operation was conducted in Upgraded Primary Health Centre, Doiwala , Dehradun on 30.03.1996, the plaintiff signed paper no. 50C/1 in which the plaintiff has declared that she is voluntarily undergoing the sterilization operation. It is further declared in the said declaration form that she understands that such operations are at times unsuccessful, and the person conducting surgery or the hospital will not be liable for any damages. Keeping in mind said operation, the courts below have dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for damages. 9. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is an illiterate lady, and does not understand the contents of declaration got signed by her. Keeping in mind said operation, the courts below have dismissed the claim of the plaintiff for damages. 9. Before this Court learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant is an illiterate lady, and does not understand the contents of declaration got signed by her. I have gone through the statement of P.W.1 Meena who has stated that she underwent sterilization operation on 30.03.1996 at the hands of Dr. Kandari. She further stated that she is an illiterate lady, and did not know what was got signed by her. In her cross-examination she admits that she had voluntarily gone for getting the sterilization operation done. Perusal of the declaration form no. 50C in the lower court record shows that the plaintiff has not marked her thumb impression, rather she has signed it in Hindi. The contents of the documents are also in Hindi. In the circumstances, it is difficult to say that she did not know as to what document was being signed by her, particularly when she states that she had voluntarily gone for tubectomy. 10. Statement of D.W.1 Dr. O.P. Kandari shows that he has stated in his examination-in-chief (affidavit) that he conducted the operation with due care, without any negligence in fixing a plastic ring. The witness has further stated that at times in such operations it so happens that later the ring gets slipped from the tube, and the operation gets unsuccessful. 11. Both the courts below have accepted explanation of defendant no. 2 Dr. O.P. Kandari (D.W.1). This Court is of the view that there is nothing on the record to hold that the courts below have erred in law in accepting the version stated by D.W.1 Dr. O.P. Kandari in his affidavit (examination-in-chief) particularly in the light of the declaration filled by the plaintiff before she underwent the sterilization operation. In the cross-examination nothing has come out which creates doubt in the testimony of D.W.1 Dr. O.P. Kandari. 12. In State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram and others (2005) 7SCC page 1 the Apex Court has observed in para 17 that there are several alternative methods of female sterilization operation which are recognized by medical science of today. Some of them are more popular because of being less complicated, requiring minimal body invasion and least confinement in the hospital. However, none is foolproof and no prevalent method of sterilization guarantees 100% success. Some of them are more popular because of being less complicated, requiring minimal body invasion and least confinement in the hospital. However, none is foolproof and no prevalent method of sterilization guarantees 100% success. The causes for failure can well be attributable to the natural functioning of the human body and not necessarily attributable to any failure on the part of the surgeon. Authoritative textbooks on gynaecology and empirical researches which have been carried out recognize the failure rate of 0.3% to 7% depending on the technique chosen out of the several recognised and accepted ones. The technique which may be foolproof is the removal of the uterus itself but that is not considered advisable. 13. The Apex Court further observes in State of Punjab vs. Shiv Ram (supra) in para 25 as under: Merely because a woman having undergone a sterilization operation became pregnant and delivered a child, the operating surgeon or his employer cannot be held liable for compensation on account of unwanted pregnancy or unwanted child. The claim in tort can be sustained only if there was negligence on the part of the surgeon in performing the surgery……………………………………………………… The surgeon cannot be held liable in contract unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the surgeon had assured 100% exclusion of pregnancy after the surgery and was only on the basis of such assurance that the plaintiff was persuaded to undergo surgery. As noted in various decisions which we have referred to hereinabove, ordinarily a surgeon does not offer such guarantee. 14. For the reasons as discussed above, this Court is of the view that courts below have not erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for damages, as it is not proved on the record that defendant no. 2 was negligent in performing the sterilization operation. The substantial question of law stands answered against the plaintiff with the observations made in this judgment. 15. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, this second appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, same is dismissed. However, costs easy.