Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"9.
Maintenance records.-- 
                                and      preservation         of
              
         (4)    The record to be maintained by every
Genetic Clinic including a Mobile Genetic Clinic, in respect of each man or woman subjected to any pre-natal diagnostic procedure/technique/test, shall be as specified in Form F."

Rule 9 (6) runs as under :--

"(6) All case-related records, forms of consent, laboratory results, microscopic pictures, sonographic plates or slides, recommendations and letters shall be preserved by the Genetic Counselling Centre, Genetic Laboratory or Genetic Clinic, Ultra Sound Clinic or Imaging Centre for a period of two years from the date of completion of counselling, pre-natal diagnostic procedure or pre-natal diagnostic test, as the case may be. In the event of any legal proceedings, the records shall be preserved till the final disposal of legal proceedings, or till the expiry of the said period of two years, whichever is later."

16) Another submission is made that as computerized record was maintained, rule 9 (7) needs to be used. This rule shows that when there is computerized record, printed copy is to be taken and preserved after authentication by the person responsible for such record. Such authentication and signature are missing.

17) Rule 10(1) and 10(1-A) are as under :-

"10. Conditions for conducting pre-natal diagnostic procedure.-- (1) Before conducting preimplanatation genetic diagnosis, or any pre- natal diagnostic technique/test/procedure such as amniocentesis, chorionic villi biopsy, foetoscopy, foetal skin or organ biopsy or cordocentesis, a written consent, as specified in Form G, in a language the person undergoing such procedure understands, shall be obtained from her/him.
21) In the first case, the Court considered Form "F" which needs to be used from 31 st January 2014 and observed that there are separate requirements in respect of maintenance of record for Ultrasound Clinic not using invasive technique and genetic test using invasive procedure. The Court further found that the allegations were very vague in nature and gave relief to the accused. In the second case there were referral letters. This Court held that flimsy mistakes can be ignored and relief was given to the accused in the second case also. In the third case there was allegation that the record was not properly maintained. As the allegations were found baseless, relief was given to the accused. In the last case, this Court held that there was no allegation against the applicant and the shortcoming or deficiency in maintaining the record could not be attributed to him.