Kerala High Court directed the couple to furnish a notarised undertaking to bear all risks consequences and liabilities arising from the IVF procedure. (Image generated using AI)The Kerala High Court has allowed a 50-year-old woman and her 55-year-old husband to avail assisted reproductive technology (ART) services despite crossing the statutory age limit, noting that they had begun IVF (in vitro fertilisation) treatment in 2013 when both were within the permissible age. The couple was allowed to proceed after agreeing to furnish a notarised undertaking accepting all risks, consequences and liabilities arising from the procedure.Justice Harisankar V Menon was hearing the couple’s petition against the Union of India, the district collector, the National and Kerala State ART and Surrogacy Boards, the director of health services and the hospital where they had undergone treatment. The court noted that the couple had commenced IVF treatment with the hospital in 2013, when both were within the permissible age limit under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.“The petitioners having come forward to bear the risk, and since such facility have been extended to similarly placed couple by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioners are also to be extended the same benefits upon furnishing an undertaking,” the court said on August 19. The court directed that the undertaking should state that the couple would bear “all risks, consequences, and liabilities” arising out of or incidental to the procedure or treatment.The couple approached the high court after crossing the age limit prescribed under Section 21(g) of the Act. According to the order, the hospital was not coming forward to provide the procedure they sought. They informed the court that they were ready and willing to undergo the treatment and were prepared to undertake the liability, if any. Justice Harisankar V Menon directed the couple to furnish a notarised undertaking before Assisted Reproductive Technology services are provided in accordance with law. (Image enhanced using AI)IVF treatment began in 2013The couple had commenced IVF treatment with the hospital as early as 2013, the court noted and said that both were within the permissible age limit under the ART Act at that time. They later approached the court after crossing the age limit prescribed under Section 21(g), when the hospital did not agree to provide the procedure they sought.Their counsel relied on a May 19, 2026 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Dr Pushpa and Another vs Union of India and Others, where a substantially similar issue had been considered. In that case, the petitioners agreed to furnish an undertaking before the competent authority accepting responsibility if injury or damage was caused to the woman on account of the treatment.The Punjab and Haryana High Court subsequently allowed the petition and directed that further treatment could proceed after the undertaking was furnished. The Kerala petitioners also agreed to furnish an undertaking before the fourth respondent, the Kerala State ART and Surrogacy Board, for availing ART services.Story continues below this adCentre opposed plea over age limitThe Centre opposed the couple’s plea, arguing that the provisions of Section 21(g) of the ART Act could not be diluted. The centre’s counsel submitted that the petitioners had admittedly crossed the prescribed age limit and, therefore, no facility could be provided to them.The court, however, noted that the couple had come forward to bear the risk and that a similar facility had been extended to a similarly placed couple by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court held that the petitioners should also be extended the same benefit upon furnishing an undertaking before the fourth or second respondent stating that they would bear all risks, consequences and liabilities arising out of or incidental to the procedure or treatment.ART services subject to notarised undertakingThe relief was conditional on the couple furnishing a notarised undertaking. “Needless to say, upon the petitioners furnishing the aforesaid as a notarised undertaking, the ART services shall be provided to them in accordance with law,” the court said.The case record includes documents relating to the couple’s earlier treatment. These include an IVF/ICSI (Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection) cryopreservation summary issued by the hospital on July 14, 2016. The couple also produced a current embryo viability certificate issued by the hospital on April 23, along with a letter issued by the hospital on April 24 this year only.Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express (Digital), where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system. Expertise Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including: Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability. Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters. Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights. Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More