IVF failure not cheating: Allahabad HC quashes criminal proceedings against doctor
Allahabad: In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court held that a mere failure of an IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation) procedure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent or the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
With this observation, an Allahabad HC bench of Justice Chawan Prakash granted relief to a doctor who was booked for failure of an IVF procedure and quashed the criminal proceedings against her.
The court held that a clear distinction exists between a mere breach of contract or medical failure and the offence of cheating, depending on the accused's intention at the time of the inducement.
"To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C., the essential ingredients that must be established are deception of any person; fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to deliver any property; and an intention to deceive existing at the very inception of the transaction or promise," observed the HC bench.
"The distinction between a mere breach of contract or medical failure and the offence of cheating depends on the intention of the accused at the time of the inducement. Mere failure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent," it further noted.
Referring to the IVF procedures, the bench noted that medical statistics acknowledge that the procedure has inherent failure rates that depend on numerous physiological factors.
"Offering IVF treatment cannot be equated with a legal guarantee of pregnancy," the bench observed, while holding that the original complainant in the case failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intention on the part of the treating doctor at the time of the commencement of the medical consultation.
Case Background:
The original complainant claimed that, unable to conceive naturally, the patients (a couple) had approached the treating doctor at her Fertility Clinic in Bulandshahr for IVF treatment.
They alleged that the doctor assured that the complainant's wife could get pregnant via IVF and demanded Rs 3.5 lakh for this. The amount was paid in instalments. However, the doctor allegedly issued a receipt only for Rs 1.6 lakh.
It was alleged that despite receiving treatment, the complainant's wife did not conceive. Thereafter, when the complainant asked for a refund of the money paid, the doctor repeatedly put him off and ultimately refused a refund, allegedly stating that "This is how we make money: by misleading people. We have connections in high places."
When the local police allegedly took no action, the complainant sought recourse through the Court. The magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of his wife and another witness under Section 202 CrPC and thereafter the applicant-doctor was summoned under Section 420 IPC.
Challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against her, the applicant-doctor approached the High Court seeking relief. It was contended by the doctor that no medical procedure, particularly IVF, has a guaranteed success rate of 100%. The failure of IVF cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as evidence of fraudulent intent or cheating at the inception for the purposes of Section 420 I.P.C. The essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., namely, dishonest and fraudulent inducement at the time of making the promise, are completely absent from the complaint, argued the doctor's counsel.
Observations by High Court:
While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of the submissions by both parties, perused the record, including the complaint, the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and the impugned order.
It was observed by the court that in order to establish an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, it must be proved that the accused deceived someone and dishonestly or fraudulently induced them to deliver property, with the intention to deceive existing from the very beginning of the transaction or promise.
Further, the HC bench clarified that a mere breach of contract or failure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically amount to cheating, and the key factor is whether the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intentions at the time of making the inducement, rather than the mere fact that the promised result was not achieved.
The bench referred to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, where the Apex Court laid down parameters for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The bench also referred to the top court order in the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, where the court observed that medical science is not an exact science. A medical practitioner cannot guarantee a cure. The failure of a treatment or procedure does not, by itself, imply negligence, much less criminal liability or fraud under the Indian Penal Code.
Referring to these legal precedents, the HC bench observed,
"Applying these established legal principles to the case at hand, the applicant is a recognized medical practitioner who runs a fertility center. Opposite party No. 2 sought specialized assisted reproductive treatment (IVF). Medical statistics universally acknowledge that IVF procedures have inherent failure rates that depend on numerous physiological factors. Offering IVF treatment cannot be equated with a legal guarantee of pregnancy. Opposite party No. 2 has failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant at the time the medical consultation commenced. The money received represented professional fees charged for medical services and procedures rendered over time."
"Allowing criminal prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. for unsuccessful medical treatment would set a dangerous precedent, subjecting medical professionals to criminal liability whenever a medical procedure does not yield the desired result. Both the learned Magistrate and the learned revisional Court failed to appreciate that the dispute, at best, pertains to an unsuccessful medical procedure or a monetary claim and does not involve the requisite mens rea to constitute an offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Proceeding with the trial on these facts constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the Court," it further held.
The bench observed that it is a settled principle of law that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. It noted that the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants under Section 420 I.P.C.
"A perusal of the summoning order shows that the learned Magistrate passed it in a very casual and mechanical manner, without carefully applying his judicial mind," observed the Court.
Accordingly, quashing the criminal proceedings against the doctor, the HC bench observed, "From the averments contained in the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.and 202 Cr.P.C., no prima facie case is made out against the applicants. The learned Magistrate, therefore, erred in summoning the applicants. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order is liable to be set aside."
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/11/03/dr-sarita-vs-state-of-up-481952.pdf
