IVF embryo discarded without consent: consumer court awards ₹5 lakh compensation

A district consumer commission in Hyderabad has ruled that discarding embryos during a couple's IVF treatment without their consent constitutes an unlawful, negligent, and unfair trade practice. The commission directed a fertility clinic to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to the couple, who had sought treatment through assisted reproductive technology (ART).

The commission, led by President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy, observed that the couple endured significant mental agony, health issues, and financial loss, warranting compensation.

According to the order dated June 10, discarding embryos causes irreparable harm by permanently eliminating the couple's chance of biological parenthood. The commission noted that improper handling and premature disposal demonstrated gross negligence and a lack of reasonable skill expected in such specialised procedures.

The couple had undergone IVF treatment at the clinic in 2024. During the procedure, 14 eggs were retrieved, resulting in four viable embryos — two Day-3 embryos and two Day-5 embryos. They paid ₹25,000 separately for cryopreservation of the embryos for 12 months, valid until March 4, 2025.

The couple alleged that the clinic graded Day-5 embryos for frozen embryo transfer (FET), even though Day-3 embryos are generally considered more viable for ART. After an FET of a Day-5 embryo failed to result in pregnancy, the couple requested the transfer of the remaining Day-3 embryos. They were then informed that those embryos had already been discarded, despite the freezing period still being valid.

The couple further alleged that the clinic may have transferred the productive embryos as donor embryos to other patients, depriving them of the chance to have a child — a loss they said cannot be measured in monetary terms. They had spent approximately ₹2.8 lakh on the treatment, including freezing charges.

Although the clinic entered an appearance, it failed to file its written version within the prescribed time, resulting in forfeiture of its right to defend the complaint. Later attempts to rely on affidavits and medical literature were rejected by the commission, which held that without proper pleadings, such evidence could not effectively rebut the couple's case.

The commission found that the clinic had accepted charges for preserving the embryos for one year, creating a legitimate expectation that they would remain preserved. It noted that within two months, the embryos were discarded without the couple's information, knowledge, or consent.

The commission held that prior consent is mandatory under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 for procedures involving embryos, and that destruction of embryos without explicit consent constitutes a direct breach of statutory obligations. It remarked that the clinic's actions unlawfully interfered with the couple's autonomy and future family planning.