Egg donor’s death: Petition dismissed, no court relief for doctors

The petition filed in the HC by the doctors wished to “quash their implications” for offences of negligence and abduction registered by the Sakinaka police station.

However, the court declined to do so. There were aspects, the HC asserted, that required deeper consideration. Whether deceased Sushma was minor or major who had visited the hospital run by the petitioners for donation of ovarian eggs,” is one such aspect, Justices N H Patil and A M Badar pointed out.

The counsel for the petitioners, Raja Thakare, earlier submitted that it was not for the first time the victim had been to the hospital for donating eggs. On earlier two occasions, he argued, Pandey came “out of her free will”, along with the guardian. It was the petitioners’ contention that following all necessary formalities and signing of necessary papers, required procedure was followed and the girl was discharged.

Thakare argued that even if there had been a complication, it must have not been on the part of the doctors, but due to some “extraneous reason” which occurred outside the hospital. It was, therefore, submitted that petitioner could not be held responsible.

The police, represented by assistant public prosecutor Mankunwar Deshmukh, contested the claims arguing the investigating agency had thoroughly investigated the matter. She submitted that the doctors had removed eggs without any legal sanction. And this did not happen once, but thrice, she pointed out.

It was the police case that though consent was taken by getting signatures on a few forms of both Pandey and Noorjahan, the petitioners’ claims cannot be vindicated in light of their responsibility and the legal liability when following such a procedure. She submitted that even today, there is no law governing or permitting donation of ovarian eggs.

The court frowned at whether consent of Noorjehan could be treated by the doctors as a valid consent, and if at all she could act as legal guardian of the victim. Even Pandey’s motive, the court said, to donate eggs has to be looked into. “And if petitioners took abundant caution and care to conduct the procedure on deceased Sushma, it would be a matter for consideration.”

“Certainly for any professional to stand for trial against such serious charges would be uncomfortable to face. But considering the nature of allegations made and the evidence collected by the investigating agency, in the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our writ jurisdiction at the threshold for setting aside the entire proceedings,” ruled the high court.

aamir.khan@expressindia.com