After Delhi High Court rap over pregnancy termination report, RML Hospital to sensitise doctors
The Delhi High Court had criticised RML Hospital’s medical board for failing to clearly state whether the 28-week pregnancy could be terminated and the consequences of such termination.
The Delhi High Court had specifically directed the the RML Hospital board to clarify both the feasibility of termination and the possible consequences. (File Photo) After the Delhi High Court rebuked RML Hospital for failing to respond to specific queries on a woman’s plea for medical termination of pregnancy due to foetal abnormalities, it refrained from taking action Wednesday after the hospital assured it would sensitise its doctors.
On May 6, Justice Purushaindra Kaurav criticised the hospital’s medical board for not clearly stating whether the woman’s nearly 28-week pregnancy could be terminated and what the consequences of termination would be. The court had sought the opinion after a 29-year-old married woman approached it seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy due to severe foetal abnormalities and the risk of intrauterine death.
The court had specifically directed the board to clarify both the feasibility of termination and the possible consequences. However, the board only recommended continuation of the pregnancy and did not elaborate on the risks associated with termination.
The woman was later examined by a board at AIIMS, New Delhi, which also advised against termination, citing risks to the mother, including possible uterine rupture, while noting that “the fetus may have an intrauterine demise in the coming few weeks.”
In a clarification submitted to the court on Wednesday, the RML Hospital medical board said its opinion was “essentially the same as that of AIIMS, New Delhi.” “Since the opinion for Point A (feasibility) was Continuation of pregnancy (Termination not feasible), therefore, Point B (consequences of termination which was not advised) was not included in the written response,” the board clarified.
Justice Kaurav orally observed that the hospital should have answered both questions regardless of its conclusion on feasibility. “When the court directed two aspects (on feasibility and on consequences), it was not conditional,” the judge told the hospital’s director, Dr L Shyam Singh.
“It was not that if it was not feasible, you don’t answer point 2 (consequences)… The court would have been in a better position to say ‘no’ to the petitioner, and the court would not have been in a position to direct the AIIMS to undertake the same exercise. Please sensitise your doctors… Please sensitise your team.”
The court recorded the assurance of RML Hospital director Dr Singh that the board would be sensitised and that future examinations would be conducted “strictly in accordance with provisions of the Act, rules, regulations, and guidelines framed by the concerned ministry”. The petition was subsequently disposed of.
The Board, in its clarification, added that its advice to the patient “to continue expectant management according to standard guidelines” in its report implied “continuation of pregnancy with serial monitoring.”
“Therefore, there is no difference in the opinion of the Medical Boards of ABVIMS-Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, as both have opined that MTP at this stage is not permitted,” RML Hospital’s medical board emphasised in its submission before the court.
In its clarificatory report, the RML Board also listed the potential consequences of termination at this stage of pregnancy, including severe haemorrhage, emergency laparotomy or hysterectomy, sepsis, maternal morbidity and possible mortality.
Share
