Bombay HC allows termination of 26-week pregnancy over fetal anomalies
Maharashtra- The Bombay High Court has granted permission to a woman to terminate her 26-week pregnancy after a medical board at the Civil Hospital in Maharashtra's Raigad district opined that the fetus was suffering from a severe congenital heart defect.
The order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Bharati H. Dangre and Justice Manjusha A. Deshpande on June 22, while hearing a petition filed by a woman aged between 20 and 25, seeking permission for an immediate abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
According to the Indian Express news report, advocate Dhruti Kapadia, representing the woman, said that in the medical certificate issued from the Civil Hospital, abnormalities were found in the fetus, due to which the woman had to approach the Bombay High Court.
The court directed the Civil Hospital to constitute a medical board to examine the condition of the foetus.
The bench examined the medical board's report, which stated that the fetus suffered from a severe heart condition. This would require "tertiary cardiac care at the time of delivery, and multiple cardiac surgeries would be needed for the child to survive after birth."
Meanwhile, Kapadia also argued that if the child were born, the petitioner did not have sufficient financial means to cover the cost of the child's medical treatment.
Notably, while passing the order, the court stated that “In the wake of the report dated June 18 placed before us, since the foetus suffers from some anomalies and, in the wake of the opinion that the child may require post natal cardiac surgeries, which would involve financial burden, and since the Petitioner, a married woman with 26 weeks and 11 days of pregnancy, has also expressed her desire to terminate it in the wake of the status of the foetus in her womb”.
“Even if the woman were to give birth, the newborn would 'require further medical care,' and since she has 'clearly stated that she belongs to a weaker section of society,' the 'family might not be able to afford such treatment, '' the court further noted.
