IVF Failure Does Not Necessarily Result Into Medical Negligence, New Delhi Commission Clears Doctor’s Liability

Brief Facts:

Umesh Chand Sharma and his wife Rachna Sharma (“Complainants”) approached Dr. Manika Khanna (“Doctor”) on 02.04.2010 due to their inability to conceive. Rachna Sharma underwent a course of medication and underwent various tests under the care of the doctor from mid-2010 to early 2011. The Complainants paid a total of Rs. 2.70 lacs for IVF treatment during the period of November to December 2010, to the doctor. This payment was inclusive of consultation fees and laboratory tests. In an attempt to address the infertility issue, on 26.11.2010, the doctor performed an Embryo Transplant (ET) procedure on Rachna Sharma. However, the pregnancy test conducted on 10.12.2011 yielded a negative result, indicating that the procedure was unsuccessful. Additionally, an attempt at surrogacy also proved unsuccessful.

Complications arose when, during a subsequent visit to the doctor on 12.04.2011, Rachna Sharma was prescribed Anti-Tuberculosis Therapy (ATT). This medication led to complications, which the Complainants alleged included abnormal fibroids, irregular bleeding, and an irregular menstrual cycle for Rachna Sharma. These complications further diminished her chances of becoming a mother. Aggrieved, the Complainants filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, New Delhi.

The Complainants strongly argued that the doctor they had consulted had not provided them with the right treatment. They claimed that the doctor's actions caused them a lot of problems. They said that after the special procedure to help Rachna Sharma get pregnant, it didn't work, and the test showed that she was not pregnant. They also stated that the attempt to use a surrogate mother failed as well. They felt that the doctor's medicine for Tuberculosis caused more health issues for Rachna Sharma. They were of the opinion that the doctor's treatment was not proper and caused these problems. They presented prescriptions, payment receipts, medical reports, and consultation records to back their argument.

The Doctor defended herself by saying that she did everything properly and with good intentions. She explained that she was a well-known and respected doctor, and she had helped many couples who were facing similar problems. She argued that Rachna Sharma had some health issues like fibroids and blockages that were causing the problem.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission took note of the attempts made by the Complainants to undergo both IVF and surrogacy procedures in their quest to conceive. It acknowledged that neither procedure yielded the desired outcome, which led to the consideration of the varying success rates associated with such fertility treatments. It was highlighted that success rates, especially for women over 35, are not guaranteed and diminish with age, a fact substantiated by medical literature.

In assessing the validity of the medications prescribed by the doctor during the Embryo Transfer (ET) procedure and Tuberculosis (TB) treatment, the forum recognized that these prescriptions were rooted in sound medical reasoning. However, it was equally mindful of the complications experienced by Rachna Sharma post-treatment.

The forum made a significant distinction between the failure to achieve conception through fertility procedures and medical negligence. Emphasizing the absence of assured success in such procedures, the forum highlighted that the consent forms signed by both parties explicitly conveyed this fact. Reliance was placed on M Kocher vs Ispita Seal I (2018) CPJ 41 (NC), wherein it was held that lack of success in medical procedures, such as infertility treatments like IVF, does not automatically indicate medical negligence.

Therefore, the District Forum dismissed the compliant filed by the Complainants against the doctor.

Case: Umesh Chand Sharma vs Dr. Manika Khanna

Case No.: Complaint Case No. 335/2012

Advocate of the Complainant: N.A.

Advocate of the Respondent: N.A.

Click Here To Read/Download Order