Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Bombay High Court

Sunaina Avadhesh Prasad vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 22 October, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 BOM 2588

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Milind N. Jadhav

                                                                          17. OS WPL 4491-20.doc

R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             O.O.C.J.

                                  WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 4491 OF 2020

                      Sunaina Avadhesh Prasad                        .. Petitioner
                                Versus
                      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                    .. Respondents

                      D.V. Saroj for the Petitioner
                      Ms. Purnima Kantharia, Government Pleader for the State

                                        CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
                                                MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

DATE : 22 OCTOBER 2020.

(Through Video Conferencing) ORDER [PER MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]:

1. Petitioner is about 35 years old. She is carrying a fetus of about 32 weeks. She has filed this petition seeking permission for termination of her pregnancy on the ground that the child, if allowed to be born, would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to seriously handicap him / her.

2. By order dated 15 October 2020, we requested the Medical Board of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai to examine the Petitioner and submit a report. The Medical Board of Associate Professor and Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry; Professor, Department of Radiology; Professor, Department of C.V.T.S.; Professor and Head, Department of Paediatrics and Professor and 1 of 3

17. OS WPL 4491-20.doc Head, Department of Cardiology has examined the Petitioner . The Board has opined as under:-

" AFTER DETAILED HISTORY & EXAMINATION & AFTER PERUSAL OF ULTRASONOGRAPHY REPORTS & 2D ECHO REPORT DONE AT SIR J.J. GROUP OF HOSPITALS, MUMBAI IT IS CONFIRMED THAT FETUS SUFFERS FROM "SINCLE ATRIUM & VENTRICLE WITH TRUNCUS ARTERIOSUS, PULMONARY ATRESIA, WITH PDA, WITH SINGLE AV VALVE WITH MILD AV VALVE REGURGITATION" WHICH IS A SERIOUS CARDIAC ANOMALY HAVING HIGH NEONATAL MORBIDITY & MORTALITY.
SINCE THE PREGNANCY HAS ADVANCED TO 32 WEEKS, WELL BEYOND LEGAL LIMIT OF TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY, PATIENT HAS APPROACHED THE Hon'ble HIGH COURT FOR TERMINATION OF THIS PREGNANCY. TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY CAN BE ALLOWED CONSIDERING COMPLEX HEART DISEASE IN FETUS AS IT MAY LEAD TO PHYSICAL & EMOTIONAL TRAUMA TO MOTHER & FETUS.
SINCE THE PREGNANCY HAS ADVANCED TO 32 WEEKS & PATIENT HAS APPROACHED THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES LATE, THE OUTCOME OF PREGNANCY IF TERMINATED NOW, WILL RESULT IN LIVE BIRTH. IT WILL BE ALMOST EQUIVALENT TO THE PREGNANCY OUTCOME AT TERM. SINCE THE PARENTS ARE DISTRESSED REGARDING THE CONDITION OF THE FETUS WHICH BEARS HIGH NEONATAL MORBIDITY & MORTALITY, PREGNANCY CAN BE TERMINATED AFTER INTRAUTERINE FOETICIDE.
IF THE Hon'ble HIGH COURT PERMITS TERMINATION OF THE PREGNANCY, IT MAY BE DONE IN ANY INSTITUTE WHERE THE FACILITY & EXPERTISE FOR INTRAUTERINE FOETICIDE IS AVAILABLE."

3. It is settled position of law that a writ court, in appropriate circumstances, can issue directions for medical termination of pregnancy even after period of 20 weeks specified under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 is over. There is no reason for us to disregard the opinion of the Medical Board. In this case, we take note of the apprehension expressed by the Medical 2 of 3

17. OS WPL 4491-20.doc Board that pregnancy can be terminated after intrauterine foeticide which may be done in any hospital / institution where facility and expertise in intrauterine foeticide is available. Learned Government Pleader states that the Government Hospitals / Institution may not be equipped and therefore, Petitioner should be directed to carry out the operation in any hospital / institution which will have the facility and expertise as opined by the Medical Board and the Petitioner may be directed to do so.

4. In view of the above, Petitioner is permitted to carry out medical termination of pregnancy as per the report of the Medical Board in any hospital / institution of her choice.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

6. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned to act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ NITIN JAMDAR, J. ] Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date:

Amberkar 2020.10.22 18:33:59 +0530 3 of 3