The Delhi High Court has issued a stern directive to Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital to “sensitise” its medical staff after a procedural oversight delayed a critical legal decision regarding a woman’s plea for a late-term medical termination of pregnancy (MTP).
Justice Purushaindra Kaurav on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed by a 29-year-old married woman seeking to terminate her 28-week pregnancy due to severe foetal abnormalities and the risk of intrauterine death. While the court refrained from taking formal action against the hospital, it highlighted significant lapses in how the hospital’s medical board communicated its findings.
The controversy began on May 6, when the court criticized RML’s medical board for failing to provide specific answers to two primary queries: the feasibility of the termination and the potential consequences for the mother.
Instead of addressing both points, the board originally only recommended that the pregnancy continue, omitting a detailed breakdown of the risks associated with termination. This omission forced the court to seek a second opinion from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).
“When the court directed two aspects, it was not conditional,” Justice Kaurav told RML Hospital Director, Dr. L. Shyam Singh, during the hearing. “It was not that if it was not feasible, you don’t answer point 2. 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.”
The subsequent examination by AIIMS also advised against the procedure, citing severe risks to the woman, including potential uterine rupture. AIIMS experts noted that while the foetus might face “intrauterine demise in the coming few weeks,” the dangers of an active termination at this stage were too high for the mother.
In a clarification submitted on Wednesday, the RML medical board admitted their initial report was brief because they deemed termination unfeasible. They have since aligned their opinion with AIIMS, detailing that termination at this advanced stage could lead to severe haemorrhage, sepsis, maternal morbidity, and even mortality.
The RML board further clarified that their recommendation for “expectant management” essentially meant continuing the pregnancy under serial monitoring.
The court accepted an assurance from Dr. Singh that RML’s medical boards would be sensitised to ensure future examinations are conducted strictly according to the MTP Act and government guidelines.
Justice Kaurav emphasized that clear, unconditional reporting from medical boards is essential for the judiciary to make timely and informed decisions in cases where every day matters. With the medical boards of both premier institutions now in agreement regarding the maternal risks, the court disposed of the woman’s petition.
