Order
1. Petitioner 1 Savita Sachin Patil, has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.
2. We are constrained to pass this order being conscious of the fact that any permission at this stage would be irreversible.
3. By order dated 23-2-2017 WP No. 121 of 2017, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court gave a direction for examination of Petitioner 1 by a Medical Board consisting of the following seven doctors:
1. Dr Avinash N. Supe, Director (Medical Education & Major Hospitals) & Dean (G&K) — Chairman
2. Dr Shubhangi Parkar, Professor and HoD, Psychiatry, KEM Hospital
3. Dr Amar Pazare, Professor and HoD, Medicine, KEM Hosptial
4. Dr Indrani Hemantkumar Chincholi, Professor and HoD, Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital
5. Dr Y.S Nandanwar, Professor and HoD, Obstetrics, KEM Hospital
6. Dr Anahita Chauhan, Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Ltmmc and LTMG Hospitals
7. Dr Hemangini Thakkar, Additional Professor, Radiology, KEM Hospital.
4. Petitioner 1 is 37 years old and she is into her 26 weeks of pregnancy as on 25-2-2017. This is also borne by the medical report dated 25-2-2017, received from the Dean & Director's (ME & MH) Office, Seth G.S Medical College & KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai 400 012.
5. It is not in dispute that the foetus of Petitioner 1 has been diagnosed with Trisomy 21, more commonly known as Down Syndrome, a condition that causes severe physical and mental retardation to the foetus. As in all such cases, two important considerations are involved — (i) danger to the life of the mother, and (ii) danger to the life of the foetus.
6. The Medical Board has submitted its report dated 25-2-2017. On perusal of the said report, we find that the said report contains the following two significant features for the purposes of passing this order:
(1) As far as the mother is concerned, the report states that “there is no physical risk to the mother of continuation or termination of pregnancy”;
(2) As far as the foetus is concerned, the report states that “if the baby is born with Trisomy 21, it is likely to have mental and physical challenges”.
As regards the prognosis, the said medical report clearly does not and possibly cannot, observe that this particular foetus will have severe mental and physical challenges. It states that the “baby is likely to have mental and physical challenges”.
7. In the earlier part of the said medical report, there is no observation made by the aforestated Medical Board that every baby with Down Syndrome has low intelligence, but it was observed that “intelligence among people with Down Syndrome is variable and a large proportion may have an Intelligence Quotient of less than 50 (severe mental retardation)”.
8. In any case, it is not possible to discern the danger to the life of Petitioner 1 in case she is not allowed to terminate her pregnancy. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to grant permission to Petitioner 1 to terminate the life of the foetus.
9. In view of the above, as is presently advised, we decline Prayer (a) of the petitioners for directing the respondents to allow Petitioner 1 to undergo medical termination of the pregnancy.
10. List the matter along with Civil Appeal No. 7702 of 2014, for further considerations.
Court Masters