Disposed

Siddamma Golsar v. Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Jan 2017WP/766/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay was approached to permit medical termination of pregnancy at 20-22 weeks due to severe cardiac defects. The Court directed a Medical Board examination at Sir J.J. Hospital to assess fertility and viability, granting immunity to board members and fixing next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to appear before a Medical Board at Sir J.J. Hospital on 20.01.2018; Board to submit report by 23.01.2018.

Siddamma Golsar Vs Union of India through Its Secretary… — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

WP766_18.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.766 OF 2018

¶4

Siddamma Golsar … Petitioner Vs.

¶5

Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and others … Respondents

¶6

Ms Meenaz Kakalia for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms Purnima Avasthi a/w. Mr. Y. S. Bhate, Mr .Upendra Lokegaonkar for Respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. Sandeep Babar, AG for Respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2018

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondent to permit her to undergo the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy. It is reported that the petitioner is undergoing pregnancy at 22^nd week. On examination by Sonologist on 05.01.2018, Dr. Manoj Chinchwadkar, it is reported that gestation age of the fetus on the date of examination is 20 weeks, 3 days + 7 days. It is further reported that fetus shows truncus arteriosus with AV canal in the heart and borderline cerebral ventriculomegaly. Prognosis is poor. The petitioner has undergone examination by consulting Sonologist on 16.01.2018 at SRCC Children's Hospital. It is reported by the Sonologist as under:

¶11

“Levocardia. Common AV canal defect with large primum ASD. B/L SVC. Single ventricle with no IVS seen. DOV with D-malposed great arteries. Anterior aorta. Severe PS with confluent good sized branch pulmonary arteries. Normal function. Mild right AVVR. Detailed report attached.

¶12

The baby will most likely require single ventricle palliation

¶13

1/3

¶14

WP766_18.sxw

¶15

surgical pathway for the cardiac disease postnatally. I have explained to the parents that the baby will require 2-3 cardiac surgeries in its lifetime, the first 2 surgeries of which are done within the first 2 months of life. To reassess the cardiac echo soon after birth to confirm the treatment plan.”

¶16

The impressions are recorded at page 46, those are as quoted below:

¶17

“Impression: Congenital heart defect. Levocardia. Bilateral SVCs. Complete Atrioventicular Canal Defect Patent foramen ovale and additional large primum ASD with bidirectional shunt. Common AV valve. Mild right AV valve regurgitation. Single Ventricle Double outlet single ventricle. D-malposed great arteries. Anterior aorta. Infundibular and valvar stenosis Confluent good sized branch pulmonary arteries. Patent ductus arteriosus with right to left shunt. Normal ventricular contractility.”

¶18

The petitioner contends that considering the medical condition, the baby even if allowed to born in all probabilities is not likely to survive and will not have a normal life span or quality of life. Considering the prognosis opined by the Sonologist, the petitioner contends that it is desirable to permit the petitioner to undergo the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy.

¶19

In order to arrive at a proper conclusion, it is desirable to refer the petitioner for a medical examination by the Medical Board of Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai consisting of Dean of the said Hospital, Head of the Department (Gynaecology), Professors and Head of Department of Pediatric / Cardiac Surgeon, Professors or Head of Department of Radiology and Neurology and any other expert in the field to be inducted in the Board at the option of the Dean of the

¶20

2/3

¶21

WP766_18.sxw

¶22

Medical College. The petitioner shall appear before the Medical Board on 20.01.2018. The Medical Board shall examine the petitioner and tender its report to this Court in a sealed envelope through AGP on 23.01.2018. The petitioner shall bear the charges in respect of examination by the Medical Board. The Board shall sensitize the petitioner as regards the pros and cons of such procedure beyond 20 weeks. In the event of occurrence of any litigation in connection with the decision and the resultant medical termination of pregnancy, the members of the Medical Board shall have the immunity in law.

¶23

Parties, including the Hospital / Medical Board, to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

List the matter for consideration on 25.01.2018.

¶25

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶26

(R. M. BORDE, J.)

¶27

Minal Parab

¶28

3/3

Siddamma Golsar v. Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddamma Golsar v. Union of India through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Vandana Narsing Chinchwade Adn Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. J. Kumar Crtg Joint Venture Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and Ors.

Abhishek S/O. Sohanlal Tiwari Vs the Union of India, through Secretary and Ors.

Smt. Madoo Nuzhat Mateen Vs Torrent Power Limited and Ors.

Madhukar Uttam Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Rural Development Dept. and Ors.

M/S. Sairaj Luminizone Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pankaj Doshi and Ors.