The NCDRC, at the outset, opined that a clear case had been made out against the hospital and that the hospital appeared to have been indulging in unfair trade practices.
“It was not a case of an error of judgment by the treating doctors during the ART procedure, but it sounds the unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs. They were pointing fingers to each other, and everyone wants to shirk way from responsibility and liability,” the NCDRC said.
ART treatments raise complex ethical, social, and legal issues including the burden and pain experienced by women undergoing it, the Commission further remarked.
“There is no uniform protocol specifying the sequenced application of intrauterine insemination (IUI) followed by the enrolment of the woman in in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). There is need for non-technological solutions to infertility and the regulation of medical practice. There are challenges surrounding gamete and embryo donation, the use of surrogacy and gestational carriers, the possible deleterious effects of ART, and the need for regulations and laws to govern ART reporting and social inequities,” the order further explained.
The Commission also remarked that it was ‘pertinent’ to note that the children born after the procedure were girls.
“It is uncertain about the quality of sperm about its genetic profile/inheritance. At this stage possibility of inherited genetic disorders is unpredictable. Therefore, in my view the complainants deserve adequate compensation … It is pertinent to note that the delivered twins are female. Certainly, the family genealogy has been irreversibly changed. They may carry the stigma and face difficulties in future,” the Commission said.
Source: Barandbench
