Congenital Disorder

Posted on by user

Introduction
A congenital disorder (often called a birth defect) is a medical condition present at or before birth that may have structural, functional, metabolic, or genetic causes. In Indian law, the term is more than medical nomenclature: it sits at the intersection of medical negligence, reproductive rights, public health regulation (notably prenatal diagnostic regulation), disability law, medico-legal evidence, and compensation jurisprudence. For practitioners, recognising how congenital disorders engage multiple statutes and standards — and how to marshal medical evidence and expert opinion — is crucial for effective pleading, defence, or advice.

Core Legal Framework
1. Statutes and instruments commonly engaged
– Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended 2021)
– Key principle: termination is permissible where continuation of pregnancy involves risk to the life of the pregnant woman or substantial foetal abnormalities; beyond prescribed gestational limits, approvals and medical boards may be required. The Amendment extended categories and gestational thresholds for certain cases and permits termination in cases of severe fetal abnormalities upon specialist medical advice/board recommendation.
– Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)
– Key objects: regulate use of pre-natal diagnostic techniques, prevent sex selection, and mandate record-keeping of all pre-natal diagnostic procedures (ultrasound, amniocentesis, NIPT). Practitioners must maintain detailed records and cannot use diagnostic techniques for sex determination.
– Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), and earlier Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995
– Relevance: congenital conditions that cause long-term impairment (e.g., cerebral palsy, congenital limb deficiency) are covered under the statutory scheme for disability certification, entitlements, and rehabilitation.
– Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (and predecessor Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
– Medical services are actionable as “service” where deficiency in service/malpractice causes harm — Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 SCC 651 (Supreme Court) established medical services as within consumer fora jurisdiction.
– Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Relevant provisions when criminality is alleged: sections dealing with causing miscarriage (sections 312–316); criminal negligence (section 304A — causing death by rash or negligent act); and other applicable offenses depending on facts (e.g., administering harmful substances).
– Indian Evidence Act, 1872
– Section 45: opinion of experts admissible to assist court on matters of science/skill (e.g., genetics, radiology, neonatology). Section 65B: admissibility of electronic records (digital ultrasound images, lab reports).
– Limitation Act, 1963
– Special considerations: causes of action in respect of congenital anomalies may accrue at birth or on discovery; minors enjoy disability protections under Section 6; practitioners must consider accrual and tolling.

Practical Application and Nuances
How courts and tribunals treat “congenital disorder” depends on the forum and relief sought. Below are day-to-day practical points, evidentiary expectations, and example pleadings/arguments.

  1. Medical negligence (civil/consumer) claims where parents allege negligent prenatal care/diagnosis or negligent delivery causing a congenital condition
  2. Typical pleadings: duty of care (treating obstetrician/hospital), breach (failure to offer or properly interpret prenatal diagnostic tests, failure to counsel, failure to obtain informed consent, substandard delivery/anaesthesia management), causation (breach caused or materially contributed to the congenital condition/injury), and quantifiable damages (medical and rehabilitation costs, special education, loss of earning capacity, pain and suffering).
  3. Evidence required:
  4. Complete antenatal records (ANC cards), ultrasound reports (with machine identifiers/time-stamps), lab test reports (TORCH screening, genetic tests), consent forms (documenting counselling provided), hospital admission and discharge summaries, neonatal records including APGAR scores, neonatal ICU notes.
  5. Expert affidavits/reports from obstetrician, radiologist (to interpret scans), geneticist (to opine on etiology), paediatrician/neonatologist (to quantify disability and needs), and rehabilitation specialist (future care costs).
  6. If allegation is of missed prenatal diagnosis, court will scrutinise whether the alleged diagnostic test was indicated, provided, and if so, whether interpretation fell below accepted professional standard.
  7. Causation nuance: Congenital disorders may be genetic or teratogenic (prenatal exposure). Establishing a specific negligent act as the proximate cause is often the crux. Courts apply “balance of probabilities” in civil cases; thus, cogent expert opinion linking breach to injury is decisive.

  8. Remedies and quantification: Consumer fora and courts award damages comprising past medical expenses, future treatment/assistive devices, special education, attendant care, and loss of expectation of life/earning capacity. Practitioners should prepare comprehensive lifetime cost schedules substantiated by rehabilitation experts.

  9. Claims arising from failed sterilisation/contraception (birth of child with congenital disorder)

  10. Causes verge on both negligence and “unwanted birth” jurisprudence. Relief often sought includes costs of upbringing and special needs due to congenital disorder. Distinguish cases where claim is for “wrongful birth” versus pure medical negligence for congenital injury.

  11. Criminal allegations (e.g., negligent act causing fetal harm; illegal prenatal practices)

  12. Prosecution for offences such as causing miscarriage (Sections 312–316 IPC) requires proof of intention or knowledge in relevant sections; for negligent acts not amounting to intention, courts examine mens rea and apply standards from Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 (criminal negligence standard for medical professionals).

  13. PCPNDT Act prosecutions: improper use of prenatal diagnostic techniques, failure to maintain records, and facilitating sex determination attract penal consequences and licence cancellation; practitioners must ensure statutory compliance even when counselling about fetal anomalies.

  14. Abortion/termination for diagnosed congenital anomalies

  15. MTP Act (as amended) recognises severe fetal abnormalities as medical grounds for termination. Up to prescribed gestational limits, treatment by registered medical practitioners is allowed; beyond that, a medical board’s opinion may be required. Practitioners facilitate the process by obtaining timely and well-documented diagnostic opinions and counselling records.

  16. Practical nuance: PCPNDT compliance must be strictly observed even where tests are performed to detect anomalies — avoid any act that could be interpreted as sex determination.

  17. Disability law and entitlements

  18. For a child with a congenital impairment, statutory certification under the RPwD Act enables access to government benefits, reservations in education/employment (where applicable), and schemes for assistive devices and rehabilitation. Medical boards constituted under the Act or state rules issue disability certificates; practitioners should assist families in obtaining these.

  19. Forensic and evidentiary practices — what works in court

  20. Expert evidence: Bring contemporaneous expert reports; courts will value independent hospital notes over retrospective reconstructions. Under Section 45 Evidence Act, experts must set out reasons for their opinions.
  21. Electronic records: Ensure compliance with Section 65B for ultrasound images, lab results, and digital consent forms; preserve metadata and device logs.
  22. Chain of custody for biological samples (amniotic fluid, genetic material): maintain protocol to avoid challenge.
  23. Photographic/video documentation: neonatal photos, clinical photos (with dates) help prove deformities and progression.
  24. Multi-disciplinary panels: For complex causation, courts prefer evidence from geneticists and internationally accepted journals summarising probability of causation.

Landmark Judgments
– Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651
– Principle: Medical services fall within the ambit of “service” under consumer protection law; aggrieved patients can approach consumer fora for deficiency in service, including cases involving congenital disorders caused by alleged medical negligence.
– Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel & Anr., (1996) 4 SCC 332
– Principle: Clarified the test for medical negligence — the duty to inform patients, standard of care expected from doctors, and the need to disclose material risks. Applicable where parents allege insufficient counselling leading to failure to identify/act on congenital risk.
– Samira Kohli & Anr. v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 493
– Principle: Informed consent and the nature of consent for invasive procedures; courts insisted on valid, informed consent for non-emergency invasive procedures — relevant where prenatal/invasive tests (amniocentesis) are alleged to have been performed without valid consent.
– Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1
– Principle: Set the standard for criminal negligence of medical professionals — gross negligence or criminal rashness required to convict; guidance used in prosecutions alleging fetal injury or death due to negligent obstetric care.

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
For plaintiffs/claimants (parents/guardians):
– Start with preservation and documentation: secure hospital records, imaging, lab data, consents, and chain-of-custody for samples. Apply for certified copies immediately.
– Obtain contemporaneous expert reports before litigation — an objective, reasoned opinion linking breach to outcome strengthens causation. Multi-disciplinary corroboration (radiology + genetics + neonatology) is persuasive.
– Quantify damages comprehensively: past and future medical costs, special education, assistive devices, rehabilitation, and attendant care. Use actuarial tables or reliable rehabilitation estimates; courts appreciate detailed schedules with expert backing.
– Use consumer fora for expedient relief; maintain statutory protocols for minor plaintiffs (guardian under Limitation Act and representation rules).
– Consider alternative reliefs: compensation, disability certification and entitlements, social welfare schemes, and orders for life care plans.

For defendants (hospitals/doctors):
– Maintain impeccable record-keeping — contemporaneous antenatal cards, standardised reporting formats, electronic logs for scans, signed informed consent detailing risks, and counselling notes.
– Ensure PCPNDT compliance: display licences, preserve Form F entries, and retain printouts/records for mandated period.
– In litigation, attack causation where the underlying etiology is genetic/idiopathic: courts will not easily attribute congenital malformation to lapse unless expert opinion demonstrates probability.
– If criminal exposure exists, lean on Jacob Mathew’s higher threshold for criminal negligence; in parallel, engage independent medical boards to review standard of care.

Common pitfalls to avoid
– Sloppy record-keeping: absence of contemporaneous records weakens defence and plaintiff’s case.
– Overreliance on retrospective expert opinions unanchored to hospital documents.
– Failure to preserve digital metadata (ultrasound machine logs) that would establish timing/contents of scans.
– Missteps under PCPNDT (even administrative non-compliance can produce severe penalties).
– Pleading definite causation when medical science only supports probabilistic links — frame causation properly (balance of probabilities, proximate causation).

Conclusion
Congenital disorders in Indian practice traverse criminal law, consumer law, disability law, reproductive rights, and public health regulation. Success in litigation or administrative processes turns on three concrete skills: (a) rigorous preservation and presentation of contemporaneous medical records (including electronic data under Section 65B), (b) persuasive, reasoned expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act that links breach to outcome on the balance of probabilities, and (c) strategic navigation of statutory regimes — PCPNDT compliance, MTP provisions for fetal anomalies, and RPwD Act entitlements for long-term care. For practitioners, meticulous documentation, early multidisciplinary expert involvement, and precise pleadings addressing duty, breach, and causation are the indispensable practical tools for cases involving congenital disorders.