Colombian doctor ordered to pay $100,000 in child support after failed vasectomy

Over the next decade, a doctor will have to pay the equivalent of child support for a baby that resulted from their failed vasectomy procedure. Image / Getty Images

A couple in Colombia has been ordered to pay a hefty fee in the form of child support after a vasectomy he performed on a man didn’t work and he went on to father another child.

According to news.com.au the charge has been dragged through the courts for years and has finally settled as the child reaches 10 years of age. By the time they reach 18, the doctor will have to have paid 295 million Colombian pesos (approximately $103,000).

The child’s parents, who already had two children, opted for a vasectomy in 2012. Citing financial hardship due to the father suffering from severe hearing loss which allegedly made finding work difficult, the couple sought out the surgeon to perform the common procedure which sees a one in 1000 fail rate.

The man is understood to have returned to the clinic following his vasectomy where he was assured the procedure had been a success.

However, the following year in 2013 his wife gave birth to a third child, a daughter.

The couple were shocked to discover they were pregnant with a third child after the father had undergone a vasectomy. Photo / Getty Images

When the child was 4, after struggling financially as her parents had predicted they would, they decided to take the surgeon and the clinic they worked at to court.

The court eventually ruled in the family’s favour, agreeing the failed procedure had a lifelong impact.

According to the Daily Mail the ruling stated: “When it was proved that the parents did not want to [have] more children, it was concluded that there was an impact on their life projects that had repercussions in the immaterial field, especially considering the precarious economic situation of the father, who currently cannot work due to their health problems.”

In December, the judge reported that the failed vasectomy caused “harm in the exercise of sexuality and reproductive freedom” of the man and his wife and also “considerably affected the economy of the family nucleus”.

“It has generated worries and afflictions for the plaintiffs, since they have no way to meet the basic needs of the minor.”