Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: IVF in Federation Of Obstetrics And ... vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2019Matching Fragments
61. Ms. Pinki Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General has relied upon a case study on record keeping as an implementation tool of Prabhakar Hospital in Panipat. In this case Hospital had not sent the report of IVF done at its Centre to the Appropriate Authority despite meeting held on 10.10.2013 and subsequent reminders. After thirteenth reminder dated 27.11.2014, a show cause notice was issued to the Hospital on 2.2.2015. The aforesaid case study reads thus:
“In the case of this Hospital the report of IVF done at the centre was not sent to the Appropriate Authority despite meetings held on 10.10.2013 and reminders sent on 6.3.2014, 14.3.2014, 20.3.2014, 21.3.2014, 25.3.2014, 28.3.2014, 31.3.2014 and finally with a thirteenth reminder on 27.11.2014.
During inspection following discrepancies were found a. In form no.9338, Invitro Fertilization (IVF) was done on patient with 2 female children with repeated history of 4 abortions.
b. In form no.9700, woman with 8 female children received IVF.
c. In form no.10385, patient Santosh with 7 female children received IVF but did not fill the section C in FForm. Section C in form F pertains to the records of the invasive procedures which requires records of all diagnostic procedures done on men and women which has potential of sex determination/selection to be recorded. d. Form no.10389, woman with 3 female children received IVF, form F Section C not filled in.
e. Form no.9338, woman had 2 female children and 6 abortions, and received IVF.
f. Form no.9700, a woman with 8 female children received IVF.
The hospital was asked why patients who had female children underwent IVF as evident from the records. In several of the cases it is inexplicable why the samples were sent to Delhi and Bombay. In many F forms many female patients with wrong phone numbers were mentioned. Similarly in other Form F, patients with wrong identity proofs, address proof and no identity proofs were found. In another set of form F wrong Obstetric and Abortion history was mentioned as confirmed from the patients. Difference history on referral slip and Form F was observed. Signature of patient was found to be missing in the consent form in many forms. The Signature of the witness Doctor/Counsellor was missing in all consent forms of IVF patients. Accordingly a complaint has been filed in the court.” (emphasis supplied)