Summary
The Court awarded Ms. Z ten lakh rupees in public-law compensation for negligent hospital delay that frustrated her timely request for termination of a rape-related pregnancy. Under the statutory framework considered in 2017, her own consent was sufficient on the findings about her capacity; requiring relatives’ consent was unwarranted. Later medical risk prevented termination. The award was distinct from three lakh rupees already paid under the victim-compensation scheme.
Issues
- Whether hospital delay violated the appellant’s reproductive autonomy and statutory entitlement.
- Whether relatives’ consent was required on the findings concerning this adult woman.
- What compensation and continuing support were appropriate.
Provisions considered
- Section 3, particularly Explanation 1 to subsection (2) and subsection (4), Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971The reproduced 2017 framework presumed grave mental injury from rape-related pregnancy and preserved the consenting adult appellant’s autonomy on the capacity findings made in this case. (¶¶ 19–26, 39, 55)
Held
- The appellant could express a decision and had requested termination while within the applicable period. On the Court’s findings, mild intellectual disability did not justify substituting relatives’ consent. Hospital failure to act promptly amounted to negligence in statutory duty. (¶¶ 22–26, 39, 43–44)
- The later AIIMS opinion showed risk to life and termination was not ordered. That later risk did not excuse the earlier delay; State reliance on intervening court conduct did not answer liability for PMCH’s own negligence. (¶¶ 13, 43, 53–56)
- Ten lakh rupees was awarded separately from the three-lakh victim-scheme payment, to be fixed-deposited in the appellant’s name for appropriate use and interest. The State was to provide the child proper treatment, nutrition and necessary medical aid; future grievances could be raised before the High Court. (¶ 54)
- The appellant’s identity was to be substituted with Ms. Z in court records and websites, with liberty to seek equivalent substitution elsewhere. Courts and hospitals were urged to act sensitively and promptly. (¶¶ 1, 55, 58–59)
Result
Appeal allowed to the indicated extent; High Court order set aside except the FIR-investigation direction. Separate ten-lakh compensation and continuing care ordered; no costs.