National Consumer Commission Directs Bhatia Hospital & Doctors To Pay Rs. 1.5 Crores For Negligence During IVF Treatment
The NCDRC presiding member Justice S.M. Kantikar has penalized the Bhatia Global Hospital with a fine of ₹1.5 crores for negligence and resorting to unethical practices. The Commission revealed that the event has raised concerns over distressing malpractices surrounding Assisted reproductive techniques (ART) Centres giving incorrect treatment of innocent infertile couples. The...
The NCDRC presiding member Justice S.M. Kantikar has penalized the Bhatia Global Hospital with a fine of ₹1.5 crores for negligence and resorting to unethical practices. The Commission revealed that the event has raised concerns over distressing malpractices surrounding Assisted reproductive techniques (ART) Centres giving incorrect treatment of innocent infertile couples.
The Commission stressed that the utilization of flawed protocols can have far-reaching consequences like the immense emotional and financial burdens that infertility patients endure, highlighting the critical need for accurate and compassionate care.
Brief Facts:
The complainant X and and her husband Y approached Bhatia Global Hospital and Endosurgery Institute for an IVF procedure on the advice of Dr. Archana Dhawan Bajaj. The embryo was transferred after the ICSI procedure and the pregnancy was confirmed on 04.11.2008, post which she delivered female twins on 15.06.2009.
However, one of the twins had AB positive blood type, while X had B positive and her husband had O negative. This was not a possible outcome and to resolve the uncertainty, the couple underwent a paternity test using DNA profiling at the renowned Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad in 2009. The result stunned the couple as it revealed that Y was not the biological father of the twin girls.
The distressed couple filed an original petition, demanding compensation of ₹2 crores for the alleged negligence and deficiency in service that has inflicted emotional distress, caused discord within the family, and instilled fear of potential genetic diseases, among other grievances.
The hospital and its directors shirked away from liability by claiming that the doctors involved were independent practitioners and not regular staff.
Dr. Archana contended that her role was only restricted to extracting eggs whereas it was Dr. Indira who labeled the semen samples. Moreover, the hospital handled billing and custody of lab keys and all case sheets. She also suggested the colluding of Dr. Indira and Mr. Sunil Gambhir, a relative of the complainant in sample mixing.
Dr. Indira claimed wrongful implication as it was Dr. Archana who performed the procedure. Moreover, she clarified that her role was an accompanying doctor and was not officially associated with the hospital.
Observation by NCDRC:
The Bench partially allowed the complaint and ordered Bhatia Hospital, along with its directors, to collectively pay Rs. 1 crore to the Complainants. Additionally, Dr. Indu Bhatia, Dr. Archana Dhawan Baja, and Dr. Indira Ganeshan are individually directed to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to the Complainants.
Furthermore, the Hospital and its directors have been fined Rs. 20 lakhs for engaging in unfair trade practices. This amount is to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of NCDRC. If the directions of the Commission are not followed within 6 weeks from the date of the order, an interest rate of 8% per annum will be applicable.
The total awarded sum will be placed in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalized bank, divided equally in the names of both twins. The parents will be nominees and will be allowed to withdraw periodic interest in the care and well-being of the child.
The Bench highlighted that the growth of ART centers in our country has given rise to distressing malpractices that include the early mixing of donor gametes without the knowledge of the patient just to increase the success rate of the clinic concerns. Furthermore, routine gynecologists with a lack of comprehensive knowledge open clinics driven by financial motives rather than expertise. The specialists must possess a profound understanding of ovulation physiology and reproductive gynecology to avoid any harm.
Additionally, The Commission pointed the instant case to be a Res Ipsa Loquitor. There was gross negligence in the case of the aggrieved couple since the handling of egg and semen samples was in question as it was received that there was an absence of an embryologist who plays a vital role in conducting the IVF procedures.
On the point of Compensation, the Order considered the anxiety and effects of the gross negligence on the couple and placed reliance on the Supreme Court Judgments of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs Delhi Transport Corp. & Anr. and Dr. Balaram Prasad vs. Dr. Kunal Saha & Ors. for the calculation of ‘just and adequate compensation’.
The Apex Consumer Commission has directed the National Medical Council and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India to direct the ART Centres for a prompt and fixed timeline for accreditation of the clinics from the authorities and to mandate issuing of the DNA profiling of babies born through ART procedures.
Case: X & Anr. vs Bhatia Global Hospital & Endosurgery Institute & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Case No.14 of 2010