Medical Professionals Must Offer Expert Opinions Without Fear Of Legal Repercussions: Delhi HC In Termination Of Pregnancy Case
The Delhi High Court observed that medical professionals must offer their expert opinions without the fear of legal repercussions as they will have immunity in the event of any litigation arising.
The Delhi High Court permitted the medical termination of a fetus exhibiting features suggestive of Joubert Syndrome stating that the burden of raising children with severe disabilities with limited financial resources was ‘daunting.’ Factoring in that the pregnancy was beyond 24 weeks, the Court permitted a 31-year-old married woman (petitioner) with a 9-year-old son with mental disability to undergo medical termination of her second pregnancy. The Court noted that there was a significant risk that if the child were to be born, it would suffer from serious neurological difficulties requiring “frequent and persistent medical intervention.”
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, "Medical professionals must offer their expert opinions without fear of legal repercussions, and focus on providing the best possible medical guidance in such sensitive matters.” Consequently, the Court clarified that “the doctors who have contributed their opinions as part of the Medical Board shall have immunity in the event of any litigation arising out of this petition.”
Advocate Amit Mishra represented the petitioner, while CGSC Arunima Dwivedi appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner had initially sought medical termination of her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (the Act) at Lok Nayak Hospital. Despite findings suggestive of a neurological malformation known as Dandy-Walker Syndrome, the hospital's Medical Board denied the termination due to inconclusive diagnostic results.
The High Court directed a re-examination by a Medical Board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The AIIMS Medical Board conducted investigations, including an ultrasound and a fetal MRI scan, leading to a definitive diagnosis of Joubert Syndrome.
The Court stated that the opinion rendered by the AIIMS Medical Board aligned with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s (Ministry) guidance note provided a strong basis for the recommendation to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore, considering the substantial risk of serious neurological difficulties and the adherence to the established medical guidelines, the Court found the recommendation to be well-founded in evidence and in the best interest of the Petitioner’s health and the potential quality of life for the child.
The Court was also concerned about the delay and inadequate counselling of the Petitioner by the Lok Nayak Hospital which resulted in an advanced stage of pregnancy. This underscores the need for the Medical Board to act with greater diligence and urgency in future cases. The Court advised the Medical Board of Lok Nayak Hospital on the importance of their role and the critical impact their opinions had on the lives of the Petitioners and their families
The Bench also pointed out how the Medical Board at the hospital did not meet the Court’s expectations despite the serious nature of the matter. The Court explained that the medical professionals played a crucial role in society and that “it is not the intention of this Court to demoralize them, yet, it is imperative to highlight the significance of their responsibility in such sensitive matters.”
The Court stated, “The Petitioner’s financial constraints further exacerbate this situation. The burden of raising two children with severe disabilities in a household with limited financial resources is a daunting prospect that would likely lead to grave injury to the Petitioner’s mental health. This scenario aligns with the legislative intent behind Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, which aims to protect the mental well-being of the pregnant woman by considering the practical realities of her life and environment.”
It was further clarified that the doctors who had contributed their opinions as part of the Medical Board "shall have immunity in the event of any litigation arising out of this petition."
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Mrs. R. v. The Principal Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4977)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Amit Mishra
Respondents: CGSC Arunima Dwivedi; PC Satya Ranjan Swain; Advocates Rachita Garg, Agam Rajput Preeti Chauhan, Pinky Pawar, Aakash Pathak, Advocates, Kautilya Birat and Ankush Kapoor
