Allowed

Lakshmi Haridas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2021WP(C)/21509/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition was filed by a pregnant petitioner, aged 27 weeks, challenging a refusal by respondent medical authorities to terminate her pregnancy beyond the statutory MTP Act limit. Relying on a medical board report indicating severe fetal abnormalities and remote survival chances, the court allowed the writ petition and directed authorities to permit the termination procedure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to undergo the procedure for termination of the pregnancy.

Lakshmi Haridas Vs State of Kerala — Medical Negligence | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 21509 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LAKSHMI HARIDAS AGED 27 YEARS W/O.ARUN K.HARIDAS, KUNNUMPURATHU MALIECKAL HOUSE, MANARCADU.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686019.

¶7

BY ADVS. BINOY VASUDEVAN RAJI.P.JOY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM-686008.

¶11

BY ADV.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶14

¶15

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of October, 2021

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner is a pregnant lady and the gestation

¶20

of her pregnancy corresponds to 26 weeks. She seeks, in this proceedings, directions to the respondents to allow her to terminate her pregnancy medically. It is stated by the petitioner that since the outer time limit prescribed in terms of the provisions of th e Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 for termination of the pregnancy is over, the second respondent is refusing to terminate her pregnancy. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from

¶21

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶22

¶23

abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

¶24

2 . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

¶25

also the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

3 . On 7.10.2021, this court passed the following

¶27

interim order :

¶28

“The Permanent Medical Board constituted at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam in terms of G.O.(Rt) No.2444/2020/H&FWD dated 31.12.2020 is directed to examine the petitioner and give a report before this Court as to whether continuance of her pregnancy would involve a risk to her life or any grave injury to her physical or mental health. The Medical Board shall also examine whether there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.

¶29

The petitioner shall make herself available before the second respondent along with a copy of this order, and the said respondent shall immediately make necessary arrangements for her examination by the Permanent Medical Board.

¶30

List this matter on 11.10.2021.”

¶31

4 . Based on the interim order aforesaid, an

¶32

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶33

¶34

Emergency Medical Board constituted for the purpose at the Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam examined the petitioner on 8.10.2021. The relevant portion of the report prepared by the said Medical Board which is made available to this Court at the time of hearing reads thus:

¶35

“On examination of the petitioner, it was found that the foetus is having severe IUGR with anhydramnios, which carries a poor prognosis. Hence termination is indicated. However, there is a small chance of survival of a 30 wks 6 days preterm IUGR foetus with its complications. In case of survival of foetus on termination resuscitative measures may be taken.”

¶36

As evident from the extracted report, the fetus is suffering from

¶37

severe intra-uterine growth retardation with anhydramnios, and chance of survival is remote.

¶38

5 . The freedom of a pregnant woman in making a

¶39

choice as to whether the pregnancy should be continued

¶40

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶41

¶42

cannot be taken away . Likewise, the right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy medically even after the permissible period in terms of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, has been recognised by the courts, if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

¶43

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to undergo the procedure for termination of the pregnancy. The second respondent would be free to undertake the said procedure at the risk of the petitioner.

¶44

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.21509 of 2021

¶47

¶48

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21509/2021

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED 16.04.2021 ISSUED BY DR.ASHA RANI.T.K.

¶51

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD DATED 20-09-2021 OF THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶52

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.17036 OF 2021.

Lakshmi Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Haridas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanush R.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Saramma George @ Susamma Vs Salil Evugen

Wg Cdr Gopalakrishnan Nair Jayachandran (Retd) Vs Union of India

Sugitha Ashraf Vs South Indian Bank

Nidhin Varghese Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Bindumadhav Bhima Bhattar Vs Registrar of Companies