High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 06 KL CK 0033

Bincy Yohannan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 June 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 17886 Of 2023

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 989 words

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

1.

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

“I. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to permit and facilitate the termination of the pregnancy of the first petitioner.

II. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to take steps to examine the first petitioner and to terminate the pregnancy of the first petitioner:

III. to grant such other relief's as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of this case.” (SIC)

2.

Petitioners are husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 15.12.2019 as per Hindu rites and rituals. The 1st petitioner has conceived their second child with her last menstrual date falling on 27.10.2022. The expected due date for delivery based on the last menstrual cycle is on 03.08.2023. It is submitted that all the medical reports of the 1st petitioner was normal in the test done during the 14th week. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner had unusual bleeding during her second trimester, though the scan showed nothing abnormal. But the bleeding continued and another scan was recommended and was done in between 18-19 weeks. On the basis of the opinion, an ultrasound/ Doppler Obstetric for fetal wellbeing test from another clinic was done. It is submitted that the result shows that “Single live intrauterine fetus with average gestational age of 27 weeks 5 days in cephalic presentation, Doppler parameters within normal limits. Fused frontal horn of lateral ventricle and absent CSP”. A second scan done by the petitioners shows that “the fetus is having un ossified nasal bone, fused frontal horns of cerebral lateral ventricle absent cavum septum pellucidum picture suggestive of septo-optic dysplasia”. It is submitted that the petitioners were explained of the poor prognosis by the Fetal Medicine Specialist, attached to the SAT Hospital, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. Faced with such situations, the petitioners decided for the termination of the pregnancy. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3.

When this writ petition came up for consideration on 01.06.2023, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to constitute a medical board and the 1st petitioner was directed to appear before the medical board. The 3rd respondent was directed to submit a report before this Court. Now, the report is submitted by the medical board and the same is extracted hereunder.

“Mrs. Bincy Yohannan, 24 yrs W/o Joji S,Painumoottill, Chunakkara, Alappuzha is a G2P1L1/previous normal delivery was referred from Govt. Taluk Hospital Kundara at 29weeks 5 days in view of patient and husband insisting for termination of pregnancy since USS report showing (18.5.2023) unossified nasal bone, fused frontal horns of cerebral lateral ventricle, absent cavum septum pellucidum picture suggestive of ? septo-optic dysplasia.

Medical board Opinion

Gynaecological Opinion

Mrs. Bincy Yohannan is G2PILI now at 31 weeks 4 days gestational age came for considering termination of pregnancy in view of anomaly mentioned in Ultrasound report when as per Court order for a Medical board. The Medical board opined that the anomaly mentioned in the Ultrasound scan report is not fatal and chances of survival of the baby at 31weeks + 4 days are more than 80% and same informed to patient and husband. On attempting termination, chances of failure of induction and resulting in Caesarean section with all its complications explained

Neonatology Opinion

As per history patient is 31 weeks 4 days antenatal ultrasound scan suggestive of septo-optic dysplasia at this gestation there is possibility of survival of more than 80% in view of suspect septo-optic dysplasia there is increased risk of visual and developmental disability. If baby is born alive, baby will be admitted to the NICU and detailed evaluation will be required. It will not be medically or legally ethical to not provide treatment to the neonate if born alive. Parents have been counselled regarding the chances of survival and long term neuro developmental disabilities.

Despite explaining all the associated complications, patient and husband insisting on termination of pregnancy.

The decision for termination may be taken by the Hon'ble Court and will comply by the decision there off.”

4.

A reading of the above report would show that the 1st petitioner is now at 31 weeks 4 days gestational age. The medical board opined that the anomaly mentioned in the Ultrasound scan report is not fatal and chances of survival of the baby at 31 weeks + 4 days are more than 80% and same was informed to the patient and husband. It is also stated in the report that on attempting termination, chances of failure of induction and resulting in Caesarean section with all its complications were also explained. Despite explaining all the associated complications, it is stated in the report that the patient and husband insisting on termination of pregnancy. The medical board submitted that the decision for termination may be taken by the Court and willing to comply by the decision thereof.

5.

Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that they are ready to face the consequences and complications, if any, in connection with the termination of the pregnancy. When the petitioners insist for termination of pregnancy and ready to face the associated complications, this Court is not in a position to reject the prayer of the petitioners especially because of the petitioners are aged 24 and 26 years respectively. It also submitted that, if the baby born alive, the petitioners are ready to take care of the baby. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition can be allowed.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to permit and facilitate the termination of the pregnancy of the 1st petitioner forthwith.

ii) If the baby was delivered alive, the petitioners should take care of the baby.