Prayagraj : Allahabad high court has ordered an inquiry into the circumstances under which a Caesarean section was performed on a 13-year-old rape survivor despite its earlier direction permitting medical termination of her pregnancy (MTP), observing that the doctors involved appeared prima facie guilty of deliberate negligence.
Taking into account the victim’s age, the circumstances leading to the pregnancy, her physical and psychological condition and her unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy, the high court on Sept 21 permitted medical termination and directed the chief medical superintendent of SRN Hospital, Prayagraj, to undertake the procedure.
The court said the matter warranted appropriate proceedings against those responsible for “playing with the life” of a rape survivor who had approached the court seeking termination of pregnancy. A division bench of Justices Ajit Kumar and Garima Prasad directed the principal secretary, medical and health, UP govt, to conduct an inquiry and submit a report within two weeks after examining the doctors concerned, the minor victim, her mother and the investigating officer. However, when the matter came up subsequently, the bench found that a Caesarean section had been performed instead of the court-directed MTP procedure.
The case relates to a 13-year-old rape survivor whose pregnancy had crossed the statutory 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The gestational age of the foetus was around 29 weeks and two days, according to a medical board report. The matter is scheduled to be heard next on Oct 12.
it also noted that both continuation and termination of the pregnancy carried significant medical risks While the board observed that the foetus had crossed the stage of viability. Questioning the deviation, the court noted that the doctor who conducted the surgery, Dr Aiman Abbasi, was unable to clarify who had decided that a Caesarean section be performed. Observing that the circumstances leading to the surgery required scrutiny, the court directed state govt to identify responsibility and explain why its order was not complied with.