HIV+ foetus not to be aborted

With the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi informing that it will be difficult to abort the 26 weeks foetus with HIV positive as it will be dangerous to the mother, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Bihar government to pay `3 lakh to the victim of sexual assault and rape.

A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, however, asked the AIIMS to give a treatment graph for the safety of the mother and the foetus and asked the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences in Patna to follow the treatment to be provided by AIIMS.

The Bench said the question of payment of compensation by the state for its negligence in not taking prompt steps to abort the foetus on time will be considered in August.

Counsel Vrinda Grover appearing for the woman, Indu Devi, submitted that since the medical board had stated that it will be dangerous to abort the foetus, steps should be taken to protect the mother and foetus and compensation should be paid.

With the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi informing that it will be difficult to abort the 26-weeks-old foetus with HIV positive as it will be dangerous to the mother and the foetus, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Bihar government to pay `3 lakh to the victim of sexual assault and rape.

The petitioner, a woman, aged about 35 years, sought termination of the pregnancy on the grounds that after being sexually assaulted, she was given rehabilitation in the Women Rehabilitation Centre, namely, ‘Shanti Kutir’, Mahila Punarwas Kendra, Patliputra, Patna, Bihar, where her pregnancy was discovered.

It has also been found that she is HIV positive. She expressed desire to terminate the pregnancy on March 4th, 2017. Thereafter, she was examined by the Patna Medical College and Hospital.

As nothing fruitful happened in the said college, the petitioner was compelled to move the Patna High Court.

Subsequently, the High Court took up the matter for hearing and, after referring to certain decisions of this Court, came to hold that the Medical Board’s report has stated that it would be unsafe to the life of the petitioner and further there is also compelling state’s responsibility to keep the child alive.