Factual Background
In the case of XXX & Anr.V. Bhatia Global Hospital & Endosurgery Institute & Ors. The couple before the Commission sought an intracytoplasmic sperm injection from the Bhatia Global Hospital and Endosurgery Institute in New Delhi in 2008. After undergoing therapy, the mother gave birth to twin daughters in 2009, presuming her husband was the children’s biological father. However, one of the children’s blood types raised questions about her parentage, prompting the couple to do a paternity test. The results of the paternity test showed that the child’s biological father was not the biological father.15 years after learning that their twins were produced with a semen sample from a different guy than the supposed biological father. This prompted the complainant pair to submit a consumer complaint in which they asked for 2 crore Rupees in damages for carelessness and poor service. The pair emphasized how the confusion had led to mental stress, family strife, and the dread of hereditary disorders, among other things.
Analysis of Tribunal Order
A West Delhi hospital was fined 1.5 crores by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for the mistake. The decision was passed by NCDRC Presiding Member Dr. SM Kantikar, who also expressed worry over the rapid growth of clinics using assisted reproductive technology across the nation intended to help infertile couples. The NCDRC first expressed the opinion that a strong case had been presented against the hospital and that it looked that the institution had engaged in unfair business practices. It does not appear that the treating doctors made a mistake during the ART process, but rather that the OPs engaged in dishonest business practices. Everyone was pointing fingers at one another and trying to escape accountability and liability, according to the NCDRC. The Commission additionally noted that ART therapies involve difficult ethical, social, and legal considerations, including the hardship and suffering felt by women who receive them.
The Commission stated that the mushrooming of ART clinics is resulting in patients receiving ineffective treatments and that mistakes in the use of sperm donors were happening even without the patient’s awareness. For the sole purpose of raising the clinic’s success rate, ART clinics are increasingly using donor gametes both when necessary and when not. A proper understanding of reproductive gynaecology and ovulation physiology is necessary for ART specialists. Routine gynaecologists who lack in-depth understanding are launching clinics as well because they believe there is profit to be made. In addition, the proliferation of clinics has given rise to widespread unethical behaviour in our nation. One must understand that infertility sufferers are under financial and mental strain, and the wrong therapy worsens their condition.
The NCDRC has proposed that the authorities should accredit ART clinics in a timely manner and according to a set schedule. Additionally, it is necessary to make the DNA profiling of children born through ART operations a requirement for ART Centres. The NCDRC instructed that a copy of the order be sent to the National Medical Council and the Union Health Ministry of Health for their consideration in providing the appropriate instructions to ART clinics. Additionally, Until both twins reach the age of majority, the entire granted sum of Rs. 1.30 crore must be held in fixed deposits in nationalised banks in an equal split in the names of each twin. The parents are allowed to periodically withdraw their interest in the child’s care and well-being and shall be the nominee.