High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 P&H CK 0068

PARMJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 7 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rakesh Kumar Jain
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
2181 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

60 paragraphs · 998 words
1.

Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of petitioner No. 2. They got married on 25.04.2012 and were blessed with a male child on 07.11.2014, namely,

Lavpreet Singh, who is suffering from neurological disorder (global developmental delay). Now, petitioner No. 1 is again pregnant of 24 weeks

and 3 days (as on today) and according to the report of the medical board of the PGIMER, Chandigarh, the foetus growing in her womb is also

suffering from the same neurological abnormality.

2.

Since, the pregnancy was more than 20 weeks, therefore, the petitioners have sought permission of this Court to terminate the pregnancy in

terms of the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as ''the Act'').

3.

On 01.02.2018, following order was passed by this Court: -

Petitioner no.1 is the wife of petitioner no.2. They got married on 25.04.2012 as per the Sikh rites and ceremonies. They have already got a male

child, aged 3-1/2 years, born on 07.11.2014. Petitioner no.1 is pregnant. Her pregnancy is allegedly of 23 weeks 4 days as of now. It is alleged

that when they visited PGIMER, Chandigarh for a routine check-up, they were orally told that delivery of the child would cause adverse effect on

the health of petitioner no.1 as well as the life of the foetus. Since the pregnancy is of more than 20 weeks, therefore, the petitioners are seeking

permission to get it terminated in terms of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ""Act"").

Notice of motion for 05.02.2018.

At this Stage, Mr. H.S.Sitta, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1-State.

Respondent no.2 -PGIMER, Chandigarh be served through its panel counsel Shri Rajesh Garg, Senior Advocate.

In order to ensure that termination of pregnancy is necessary to save the life of petitioner no.1, the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh is directed to

constitute board of two senior gynecologists to thoroughly examine petitioner no.1 and opine, on or before the next date of hearing, as to whether

termination of her pregnancy is possible and necessary at this stage. Petitioner no.1 shall appear before the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh on

02.02.2018 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose aforesaid.

A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties under signatures of the Special Secretary attached to this Bench, for

compliance.

4.

Apropos, the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh has sent a report of the Medical Board which read as under: -

In pursuance of the orders received from Hon''ble Judge Rakesh Kumar Jain, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh a Medical Board was

constituted in the CWP No. 2181 of 2018 case titled as Paramjeet Kaur and Another and State of Punjab and Another. The Board met under the

Chairpersonship of Prof. Rashmi Bagga and the following members attended the meeting, which was held on 03.02.2018 in the Control Rook,

MS office, Nehru Hospital PGIMER, Chandigarh at 10.30 A.M.:-

1.

Prof. GRV Prasad (Co-opted Member)

2.

Prof. Kanya Mukhopadhyay(Member)

3.

Prof. Y.S. Bansal (Member)

4.

Dr. Tulika Singh (Member)

5.

Dr. Himanshu Gupta (Member)

6.

Dr. Ruchita Shah (Member)

7.

Dr. Aastha Takkar (Member)

8.

Dr. Sahjal Dhooria (Member)

9.

Dr. Anu Priya Kaur (Member)

10.Dr. Ranjana Singh (Member Convener)

The medical board examined the patient in detail, keeping in view the history of neurological abnormality in the previous child which is quite

relevant in the present case. This foetus has got mild ventriculomegaly (11.7 mm) in the brain on ultrasound which may be associated with

neurological abnormality in this foetus. The possibility of abnormality in this foetus can be higher because the first child is also suffering from

neurological disorder (global development delay).

The patient appears to be anxious and distressed after knowing the diagnosis and prognosis of the present foetus as she already has one child who

is neurologically abnormal. The Medical Board opines that carrying out termination of pregnancy is possible but with the usual risks associated with

second trimester termination of pregnancy (bleeding, uterine rupture, need for hysterotomy and hysterectomy). There is also a possibility of the

foetus being born alive if termination is carried out at this stage of pregnancy and may survive.

5.

Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioners had apprised the petitioners about the risk involved in the termination of the pregnancy of

petitioner No. 1 as it may cause bleeding, uterine rupture and need for hysterotomy and hysterectomy.

6.

Petitioner No. 2, has given his consent by way of an affidavit dated 07.02.2018, having been fully aware of the risk involved in the process of

carrying out the termination of pregnancy of petitioner No. 1 (Wife).

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, especially that the first child of the

petitioners is mentally abnormal and there is a strong likelyhood that the second child, who is in the womb of petitioner No. 1, would also suffer

from the same neurological abnormality as it has been opined by the medical board of the PGI, but the termination of pregnancy is possible and

that petitioners are ready and willing to take risk, therefore, permission is granted to the petitioners to seek termination of the pregnancy of

petitioner No. 1.

8.

Since, there is an element of risk involved as stated in the report of the PGIMER, Chandigarh, therefore, this Court requests the Director,

PGIMER, Chandigarh to get the pregnancy of petitioner No. 1 terminated under the supervision of Head of the Department (Obstetrics and

Gynaecology), PGI, Chandigarh and by constituting a team of experienced doctors. It is also requested that the PGI shall take extra care of

petitioner No. 1 in this regard.

9.

With these observations, the present petition is hereby allowed.

10.

A copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners and to learned counsel for the PGIMER, Chandigarh under the

signatures of the Bench Secretary of this Court for immediate compliance.