JAYASHREE W/o. Satheesh v. CHAITHNAYA I.V.F. FERTILITY Through its Dr. Roopa

Complaint No.197/2025 Date of Filing: 02.07.2025 Date of Disposal : 17.04.2026

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023 CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.197/2025

DATED ON THIS THE 17 April, 2026 Present: 1) Smt.A.K. Naveen Kumari., B.Sc., LL.M., - PRESIDENT

2) Smt.M.K. Lalitha., M.A., BAL, LL.B., -MEMBER COMPLAINANT/S : Smt. Jayashree. W/o Sri.Satheesh.

Aged about 40 years

No.CH-62, 8^thCross,

K. R Vanam,

Mysuru City.

(Rep.by.Adv.Chandrshekhar)

V/S OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Dr. Roopa, Chaithanya I.V.F Fertility, No.458/A, Vinaya Marga, Siddarthnagar,

Mysuru-570011.

(Rep.by.Adv.N.Ravi Kumar)

2. Dr. Pallavi Prasad, Nova I.V.F Fertility, Unit of Riha Health care Private Limited

Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangaluru.

1

(Rep.by.Adv.K.V.Girish)

SMT.A.K. NAVEEN KUMARI.

PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed complaint against the opposite parties for issue of direction to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for having caused loss by providing inferior quality treatment amounting to and to pay compensation towards physical and mental agony towards deficiency in service and such other relief as the Commission deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The complaint in brief avers as follows:-

That on 19.02.2021 the complainant has visited the 1^st opposite party to get infertility treatment since the complainant had no children even 18 years after the marriage. The opposite party advised that to get the child through infertility it is more expensive. As the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment given by the 1^st opposite party when she questioned the 1^stopposite party about the treatment, she without giving proper response suggested the name of the 2^ndopposite party and referred

2

the complainant to the 2^ndopposite party. Accordingly, on 04.02.2023 the complainant has visited the 2^ndopposite party at Bengaluru. Then, on 15.02.2023 the 2^ndopposite party assured the complainant that in the 1^stcycle she will get child and suggested Rs.2,50,000/- towards expenses as per the package system.

3. It is contended that the 2^ndopposite party assured that good eggs out of 34 good eggs will be selected for IVF fertility. Though assured that in the 1^stcycle itself the complainant will get child, but it failed. It is contended that the 2^ndopposite party with an intention to grab money assured the complainant that she is having chance of getting the child in the 2^ndcycle and if the eggs collected from her is not proper she can by getting the eggs from the donor IVF will be done by collecting sperm of her husband. It is contended that the 2^ndopposite party has collected Rs.1,00,000/- to pay to the donor of the eggs. Again l collected Rs.2,00,000/- towards 2 package. When she did not beget the child the 2^ndopposite party has advised her for the 3^rdcycling. So suspecting the 2^ndopposite party the complainant stopped the treatment.

4. It is contended that the complainant has pledged her gold ornaments and borrowed loan from the bank. The husband of the complainant is an auto driver. They have spent Rs.8,00,000/- with an ambition to get the child. But, now they are struggling to discharge the loan. It is contended that the 2^ndopposite party has caused huge loss to the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3

5. After filing of the complaint case was registered and notice was issued to both opposite parties. After service of the notice both the opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed version separately. The version filed by the 1^st opposite party avers as follows:-

That the complaint filed by the Complainant is blatantly false, vexatious and an illegal attempt to coerce the opposite parties to part with huge sum of money. The complainant along with her husband visited the 1^stopposite party at her clinic on 19.02.2021 since they were unable to conceive a child despite being married for 19 years. The age of the complainant at the time of the visit was 36 years and the age of the complainant's husband was about 41 years. The complainant was a home maker and her husband was a driver by profession. During this visit, the complainant complained of irregular periods. The complainant also informed this opposite Party that her husband was a diabetic and suffering from hypertension. Since the complainant suffered from irregular menstrual cycles this was a factor which further reduced the chances of conception.

6. This opposite Party advised the complainant to undergo IVF treatment. However, due to the expenditure that IVF treatment would involve, which the Complainant and her husband were not willing to undertake, the complainant informed this opposite Party that they wished to try with alternate and less expensive basic infertility treatments. Accordingly, this opposite party treated the Complainant

4

with Intrauterine Insemination. Prior to the commencement of the treatment, all the factors which reduced the chances of conception were clearly and unequivocally explained to the complainant. That the complainant could not have undergone the treatment without her express consent. Since, the reports of the relevant investigations were normal, this opposite Party has advised treatment by IUI. Even during the administration of this treatment, the complainant failed to regularly follow up with this opposite Party. That the complainant and her husband visited this opposite party in the month of March 2021 and thereafter only in July 2021.

7. It is contended that after the visit on 08.09.2021, the complainant only visited this opposite party after a gap of one year in October 2022. During this visit, the complainant informed this opposite party that her husband was not sexually active and due to his medical conditions, regular intercourse was not possible. Therefore, they wished to try with IVF treatment and sought for a recommendation. Accordingly this opposite party recommended the complainant to visit the 2^ndopposite party for further treatment. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

8. The version filed by the 2^ndopposite party avers as follows:-

This opposite party has contended that in or around January 2023, the complainant approached this opposite party with a prolonged history of infertility along with her

5

husband having been married for 20 years with no history of conception and having previously undergone an unsuccessful Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) procedure. Following the initial consultation, preliminary diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate the complainant's reproductive health. Based on the results of these evaluations, this opposite party has advised In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) would offer a more favourable chance of conception, taking into consideration the fact that the quality of eggs produced by the female human body starts deteriorating after 35 years of age. That the complainant was 38 years old and prior failed IUI, and the husband's semen analysis revealing Teratozoospermia. It is contended that Teratozoospermia also known as Teratospermia is a male fertility condition characterized by the predominance of abnormally shaped spermatozoa. The presence of such abnormal sperm morphology adversely affects fertility by impairing the sperm's ability to traverse the female reproductive tract and/or adhere to the ovum, thereby making natural conception significantly difficult. The complainant and her husband underwent counseling at the Clinic, during which they were explained in detail the IVF treatment process, the package cost, and the inherent medical uncertainties. That on 04.02.2023, the complainant and her husband consented to the IVF treatment package priced at Rs.2,04,000/-. The complainant and her husband were thoroughly informed about: the procedural steps IVF treatment, the financial

6

aspects, the uncertainties involved in achieving pregnancy, even with high-quality embryo transfer and that success might not be achieved in a single cycle and repeat cycles may be required. That the complainant and her husband were also counseled for options of using the husband's sperm or donor sperm for the IVF treatment, in view of the complainant's husband suffering from Teratozoospermia. However, the couple decided to proceed with IVF treatment using the husband's sperm only.

9. That, upon adherence to all requisite protocols, including comprehensive medical and financial counseling and obtaining both oral and written informed consent from the complainant, the initial IVF procedure was commenced on 15.02.2023. Despite the procedure being carried out in accordance with the highest standard of medical care and clinical diligence, the IVF attempt was unsuccessful due to the poor quality of the retrieved Oocytes, which failed to result in viable embryos. It is contended that the Oocyte quality is a biological factor entirely beyond the control of the treating medical team and which is known to deteriorate with advancing age. Following the unsuccessful IVF attempt, the complainant and her husband approached the clinic after a gap of approximately ten months for further medical guidance. Based on the persistent fertility challenges, the option of using donor gametes was medically advised. The complainant expressly rejected the use of donor sperm, but agreed to proceed with IVF/ICSI using a donor egg.

7

10. The complainant and her husband once again underwent detailed counseling at the clinic and consented to the IVF/ICSI with donor egg treatment package priced at Rs.2,01,000/- on 27.01.2024. Despite the agreed package price, the clinic extended a discount of Rs.20,050/- and thereby reducing the payable amount to Rs.1,70,750/-. Prior to commencing the second IVF/ICSI procedure, the complainant and her husband received comprehensive counseling regarding the procedural steps and medical limitations, the possibility of the procedure not resulting in a viable pregnancy and the risk of miscarriage, even if an initial pregnancy was achieved. The complainant executed a written consent for embryo transfer dated 11.04.2024 and paid Rs.24,000/- towards transfer charges, thereby confirming her understanding and acceptance of the associated risks.

11. Although a biochemical pregnancy was achieved in the second cycle, the complainant unfortunately suffered a miscarriage. An inherent risk that had been unequivocally explained and accepted. In the absence of any act of commission or omission by the opposite party, the miscarriage as a natural biological event cannot be equated with negligence or deficiency in service. It is contended that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to treat fertility and assist with the conception of child. It involves several steps- ovulation induction, egg retrieval, sperm retrieval, fertilization and embryo transfer etc. The clinic or the doctor has not given any assurances

8

or guarantees of the treatment being successful. The payments made by the complainant, as detailed in the preceding paragraphs, were strictly towards professional medical services rendered in good faith and with full clinical transparency. The complainant availed all services contracted under both IVF cycles. It is a settled principle of law that unsuccessful medical outcomes, in the absence of any proven negligence, do not entitle a party to a refund or compensation. Hence, prays to dismiss the complaint at the threshold with exemplary costs.

12. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P7.

The 1^stopposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence. The 2^ndopposite party has filed affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to R15.

13. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for all the parties. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the 2^ndopposite party filed written arguments as well.

14. Now the points that arise for the consideration of this commission are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service by the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief sought?

3. To what order?

15. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows :-

Point No.1:- In the Negative.

9

Point No.2:- In the Negative. Point No.3:- As per the final order for the following:-

:: R E A S O N S ::

16. Point No.1:-As per the evidence of the complainant since she did not beget child even 18 years after the marriage she has visited the 1^stopposite party on 19.02.2021 to get child through treatment. The 1^stopposite party has admitted the same. What is the treatment given by the 1^stopposite party is not forthcoming in the evidence of the complainant, but just stated that the treatment given by the 1^stopposite party was not. When she questioned about the same the 1^st opposite party referred her to the 2^ndopposite party. Ex.P1 is the copy of the prescription issued by the 1^stopposite party on 19.02.2021. In this the history is shown as complaining infertility anxious to conceive. As per the evidence of the 1^stopposite party the complainant informed her that the husband of the complainant was a diabetic and suffering from hypertension. Since the complainant suffered from irregular menstrual cycles which reduced the chances of conception.

17. So, she advised the complainant to undergo IVF treatment. However, due to the expenditure that IVF treatment would involve, which the complainant and her husband were not willing to undertake, they wished to try with alternate and less expensive basic infertility treatments. Accordingly, she treated the complainant with Intrauterine Insemination. It is stated that prior to the

10

commencement of the treatment, all the factors which reduced the chances of conception were clearly explained to the complainant. Since, the reports of the relevant investigations were normal, she has advised treatment by IUI. Even during the administration of this treatment, the complainant failed to regularly follow up with her. As per the evidence of the 1^stopposite party the complainant and her husband visited her clinic in the month of March 2021 and thereafter, in the month of July 2021, after visit on 08.09.2021 the complainant visited her clinic in the month October 2022 after gap of 1 year.

18. As per the evidence of the 1^stopposite party at that time the complainant told her that her husband was not sexually active and due to his health condition regular inter-course was not possible. So, the complainant wished to try with IVF treatment and sought for recommendation. Accordingly, she has recommended the complainant to visit the 2^nd opposite party for further treatment. Ex.P2 is the copy of the USG Transvaginal Follicular Pelvic Study. As per Ex.3 to Ex.P6 the prescription and lab reports, the complainant was in touch with the 1^stopposite party till 28.10.2022. Ex.P7 is the prescription dated 28.10.2022 which is pertaining to the husband of the complainant. As per the letter dated 11.01.2022 the 1^stopposite party has referred the complainant to the 2^ndopposite party. But, the complainant has visited the 2^ndopposite party centre on 17.01.2023 i.e., 1 year after the reference by the 1^st opposite party. So, merely because the 1^stopposite party

11

has referred the complainant to the 2^ndopposite party she cannot find fault with the 1^stopposite party.

19. No materials placed by the complainant to show that the 1^st opposite party has given inferior quality treatment. What is the treatment given by the 1^stopposite party to her and what is the amount spent by her towards treatment with the 1^stopposite party is not forthcoming. The evidence of the 1^stopposite party corroborates with the entry in the copy of the case sheet Ex.P1. So, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the 1^stopposite party. No material placed by the complainant to show that the 1^stopposite party has given inferior quality treatment. Now, coming to the treatment taken by the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party, Ex.P8 is the copy of the financial counselling form dated 04.02.2023 and in this process charges is shown as Rs.2,04,000/-. As per the discharge card for ovum pick-up date of admission and date of discharge is shown as 15.02.2023. The provisional diagnosis is shown as primary infertility with advance female age and in this the date of investigation is shown as

04.02.2023.

20. Ex.P9 is copy of the higher chemistry which is followed by doctors notes and Follicular Monitoring by the 2^ndopposite party. Ex.P10 is the copy of the micro biology report of the complainant issued by the 2^ndopposite party which is dated 17.02.2024. As per the report issued by the Siddhi Diagnostics Centre dated 02.05.2024 no obvious ectopic gestational sac is identified at present. The impression is

12

shown as polycystic appearing ovaries with slightly small uterus. No obvious intra or extra uterine gestational sac at present. From which it is clear that the treatment was not successful. Ex.P11 is the copy of the bill for having made payment. Since the complainant did not conceive she has issued notice to the opposite parties through advocate on 23.10.2024 as per the copy of the notice Ex.P15 for which both the opposite parties have issued reply as per Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 respectively.

21. No document produced by the complainant to show that the 2^ndopposite party has given inferior quality treatment. Admittedly the complainant did not beget child even 18 years after her marriage. Admittedly the husband of the complainant is suffering from health issues and the eggs produced by her also not good. So, merely because the complainant has spent huge amount towards the treatment that does not mean that the 2^ndopposite party has given inferior quality treatment. When the health of the complainant did not permit to beget child even after taking egg from the donor there is no meaning in blaming the 2^nd opposite party. Even to this day the complainant did not beget baby. Merely because the treatment failed it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service by the 2^nd opposite party.

22. As per the evidence of the 2^ndopposite party although a biochemical pregnancy was achieved in the second cycle, the complainant unfortunately suffered a miscarriage. An inherent risk that had been unequivocally explained and

13

accepted. In the absence of any act of commission or omission by her, the miscarriage as a natural biological event cannot be equated with negligence or deficiency in service. It is stated that Vitro Fertilization (IVF) is a complex series of procedures used to treat fertility and assist with the conception of child. It involves several steps- ovulation induction, egg retrieval, sperm retrieval, fertilization and embryo transfer etc. The clinic or the doctor has not given any assurances or guarantees of the treatment being successful. If the complainant has begotten baby by taking treatment in any other clinic she could have attributed deficiency in service or medical negligence. So it can be said that he complaint filed by the complainant against the 1^stopposite party is barred by limitation. With regard to the 2^ndopposite party the complainant failed to prove the inferior quality treatment or negligence or deficiency in service by the 2^ndopposite party. Hence, we answer this point in the Negative.

23. Point No.2:- The complainant has sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and such other relief. When the complainant failed to prove the inferior quality treatment and deficiency in service or medical negligence the complainant is not entitle for the relief sought. Hence, we answer this point partly in the Affirmative.

24. Point No.3:- In view of answering points No.1 and 2 as above we proceed to pass the following order:-

14