Bombay HC quashes criminal proceedings against diagnostic centre

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court has quashed criminal proceedings against a pre-natal diagnostic centre on grounds that the tests conducted by the clinic was to ensure the safety of the child and not for sex determination.

The centre had been earlier stopped from doing pre -natal tests under the PNDPT Act after it was found that some information in the consent form on a nine- month pregnant woman was missing in the eight-page long form. The vigilance committee on the basis of this had alleged that the missing information was intentional and hence the ban, but the court overturned the decision stating it to be “inadvertent and unintentional”.

The bench comprising Justices A.V. Nirgude and V.L. Achliya was hearing a criminal writ petition filed by Dr Sai Shiradkar against the state of Maharashtra and Nanded Muncicipal Corporation wherein she was found guilty of not filling up the consent form from a patient before conducting ultrasonography test on a nine-month old pregnant woman after the foetus movement had slowed.

The vigilance committee in its complaint had said that they had found discrepancy in the consent form regarding full residence address, mobile number and signature of patient and hence the centre was liable for action under relevant sections of the PC&PNDT (Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques) Act.

The vigilance committee had pointed out 12 discrepancies based on which criminal action under the Act was initiated against Dr Shiradkar.

While responding to the allegations by the committee, Dr Shiradkar’s advocate pointed out that as the patient had shifted residence and was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she was unable to provide exact information as required in the consent form. Further, as she was unaccompanied there was no one who could provide the exact details of her residence, and she also did not remember her mobile number.

Based on the response by the petitioner Dr Shiradkar, the court observed “Thus reply filed by petitioner reflects that the deficiencies noted by Committee in respect of maintenance of record by petitioner was not deliberate or with oblique motive or intentional. The mistakes occurred inadvertently. No criminal intent can be attributed to petitioner in committing such procedural mistakes or lacunae.”