AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioners are wife and husband. They have filed this Writ Petition producing Exts.P2 to P5 scan reports/ medical opinion in respect of the 1st
petitioner and seeking a direction to the respondents to carry out medical termination of pregnancy of the 1st petitioner, pointing out that there are
severe abnormalities to the fetus. The gestation age of the fetus was 24 weeks and 2 days as on 23.11.2020.
When the matter came up for admission on 25.11.2020, this Court passed an interim order directing the 4th respondent to constitute a Medical
Board and to examine the 1st petitioner and to make available a report on the medical condition of the 1st petitioner and the fetus.
Smt. B.Vinitha, the learned Government Pleader, has made available the report of the medical board which would show that the medical board was
convened on 25.11.2020 itself with the following members:
Dr.A.Santhosh Kumar, Superintendent, SATH, Govt.
Medical College, Trivandrum.
Dr.Nandini V.R.Professor & Head, Department of O&G, SAT Hospital, Govt. Medical College, TVM,
Dr.Sreekumari R, Professor, Department of O&G, SAT Hospital, Govt.Medical College, TVM,
Dr.Geetha M.I, Associate Professor, Department of O & G, SAT Hospital, Govt. Medical College, TVM,
Dr.Priyasree J, RMO, Gynaec, SAT Hospital, Govt. Medical College, TVM.
The report of the Medical Board and its opinion are as follows:
“SUMMARY OF THE CASE
Mrs.Shyja, 24 yrs, married since 6 months, non- consanguinous, marriage with spontaneous conception, self- referred to SATH, Reassigned
gestational age according to 1st trimester USS 24 W + 2days as on 23/11/2020 in view of anomaly scan showing SLIUG 23 W + 1 day + 1
week in breech presentation with good cardiac activity and fetal movements, Hypoplasia of Right ventricular with ? Transposition of Great
vessels. Fetal Echo done from SCTIMST suggestive of univentricular physiology. Prognosis and need for multiple surgeries explained. Case
was discussed with pediatric cardiologist and neonatology poor prognosis explained. Baby may not survive even after multiple surgeries.
Patient and husband approached us for medical termination of pregnancy. As she has crossed period of medical termination a court order
for the same is requested.
Opinion of the medical board
As patient has requested for certificate of opinion of medical board showing details of substantial risk of pregnancy to be filed before court
for termination of pregnancy, was put forward for medical board opinion.
Decision of medical board is that the baby is having substantial risk of multiple cardiac anomalies requiring multiple surgeries postnately
and the baby may not survive even after multiple surgeries.
The medical board members have entrusted the Dept. HOD to sign on their behalf.â€
In view of the aforesaid report of the medical Board, having detected grave abnormalities in the fetus, I deem it necessary to permit the petitioners to
get the pregnancy of the 1st petitioner terminated.
The Apex court has in similar circumstances, in the judgment in Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India: (2018) 13 SCC 339, permitted
termination of pregnancy when the gestational age was 26 weeks, in view of the recommendation of the medical board and the medical report
revealing the threat of severe mental injury to the woman and to the multiple complex problems to the child, if born alive, involving complex cardiac
corrective surgery stage by stage after birth, in the event of continuation of the pregnancy. In Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India: (2017) 3 SCC 462
also, permission was granted when the pregnancy crossed 24 weeks, in view of the medical reports pointing out the risk involved. This Court also in
ABC v. Union of India : 2020(2) KHC 526, permitted termination of pregnancy in order to save the life of the pregnant woman, who was in physical
as well as mental trauma. In the judgment reported in Neethu Narendran v. State of Kerala: 2020(3)KHC 157 also this Court permitted termination of
pregnancy when gestational age crossed 23 weeks. In view of the medical report furnished in the present case, I deem it necessary to permit
termination of pregnancy of the 1st petitioner.
Therefore, having regard to the urgency involved in the matter, there shall be a direction to the 4th respondent to see that the termination of
pregnancy of the 1st petitioner is carried out at the earliest point of time, if possible today itself, by competent Doctors in accordance with the
provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,1971, its rules and all other rules, regulations and guidelines prescribed for the purpose.
In the event of the child being born alive, in the process of medical termination of the pregnancy, the Doctors shall ensure that everything, which is
reasonably possible and feasible in the circumstances and in contemplation of the law prescribed for the purpose, is offered to such child so that
he/she develops into a healthy child.
The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.