Joshi availed himself of the services of Dr Shriram Madhav Khadilkar, an obstetrician and gynaecologist practising at Shri Chaitanya Fertility Clinic in Dadar, Mumbai. The doctor gave him a quotation under which he would have to make payments, including legal charges, in stages.
On August 13, 2015, Joshi was called to a notary in Dombivli to execute an affidavit and a surrogacy agreement, and give an informed consent-cum-undertaking. On August 20, 2015, the clinic took a semen sample for the first IVF-ICSI cycle and embryo transfer.
A few weeks later, the doctor informed Joshi that the attempt had failed. After the first surrogate refused to continue, fresh documentation was executed on March 16, 2016, for a second surrogate. On March 25, 2016, the clinic collected another semen sample for the second attempt.
Dr Khadilkar initially informed Joshi that the pregnancy report was positive and collected the next instalment of charges. A few weeks later, however, he said the surrogate had lost the pregnancy after developing vaginal bleeding.
Joshi filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), made various allegations, and sought a refund of the ₹5.5 lakh he had paid, along with interest, compensation and costs. The doctor contested the case.
The State Commission observed that Joshi had produced neither the opinion of a fertility specialist nor any medical literature to substantiate his sole contention that a high sperm count guarantees a live birth. It noted that Joshi’s allegation about the deliberate “murder” of the embryo was also entirely unsubstantiated.
Similarly, it did not accept his allegation that the doctor was trading in his sperm because the samples remained in cryopreservation and were available for return.
The Commission, however, concluded that the doctor had indulged in an unfair practice. He claimed that a frozen semen sample was retained for six months and then destroyed, but had retained Joshi’s sample for over 10 years without his consent.
Regarding the documentation, the Commission observed that a patient who executes legal documents such as a surrogacy agreement is automatically entitled to receive a copy, but the doctor had not furnished the documents.
It also indicted the doctor for collecting ₹50,000 towards legal charges even though he was not an advocate and was not entitled to practise law. He had also failed to show how he had used the amount to obtain legal services.
The Commission also noted that the charges collected for three months of pregnancy were merely for the passage of time and could not be considered payment for a service. It concluded that the fee schedule was, in reality, a payment schedule for milestones rather than professional services. It deprecated the collection of charges in this manner.
The Commission further noted that the doctor had not confined himself to providing medical services. He had also collected charges for procuring an egg donor for surrogacy, fixing her remuneration and attending to legal documentation.
It concluded that the doctor had acted as a trader and intermediary in the surrogacy business. It indicted him for crossing the boundaries of his profession by going well beyond the practice of medicine in his eagerness to extract money at every stage, including through legal fees.
What compensation did the Commission award?
The author is a consumer activist
The Maharashtra State Commission concluded that the doctor had not confined himself to providing medical services but had acted as a trader and intermediary in the surrogacy business.
