JASHMINA DILIP DEVDA Vs. STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under the provisions of the PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 and Rules made thereunder challenging the order passed by the State Appropriate Authority in Appeal No.2 of 2011 dated 17.03.2011 on the grounds stated in the memo of petition.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly summarized are that the petitioner is having hospital at Ahmedabad known as Dev Hospital, which is one type of Polyclinic having other doctors from other branches like Gynecology, Physician and General Surgeon, who are also treating patient in the said hospital. The hospital of the petitioner has been granted registration under the PreNatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the PNDT Act) for carrying out such genetic Counseling, prenatal diagnostic procedure and prenatal diagnostic test, which is valid upto 23.05.2015. One Dr.Ruchita Sharda, Gynecology is also attending the hospital and the husband of the petitioner is also a doctor. It is the case of the petitioner that one Smt. Shilpa Punani of Wadhwan, District : Surendranagar had been admitted in the hospital of the petitioner on 10.09.2010 and she was advised to undergo ultra sonography test, which was carried out and Form No.F was filled in by Dr.Ruchita Sharda. Sonography test revealed that foetus, which is developing, was likely to be a mentally retarded child if it is allowed to grow. Therefore as per the medical science and jurisprudence, advice has been given to the patient that foetus is not properly developed and there are chances of complication if it is allowed to give a birth to a child. Therefore, husband and family members of the patient agreed for termination of pregnancy and the operation was performed on 11.09.2010 after obtaining necessary consent and other formalities were completed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel, Shri B.T. Rao for the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Bharat Vyas for the respondent No. 1 and learned Counsel, Shri N.J. Shah for the respondent No. 2.