The couple alleged that the clinic graded Day-5 embryos for frozen embryo transfer (FET); however, 3rd day embryos are more viable for ART (assisted for reproductive technology). (Image generated using AI)A district consumer commission in Hyderabad has held that discarding embryos during a couple’s IVF treatment without consent is an unlawful, negligent and unfair trade practice and directed a fertility clinic to pay Rs 5 lakh to a couple who wanted to become parents through assistive reproductive technology (ART).President B Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and members C Lakshmi Prasanna and V Janardhan Reddy observed that the couple suffered a lot of mental agony, inconvenience, several health issues and also financial loss for which they are entitled to compensation.“Discarding embryos results in irreparable harm permanently eliminating the couples chance of biological parenthood. The improper handling and premature disposal demonstrate gross negligence and lack of reasonable skill expected in such specialised procedures,” the order dated June 10 read.Embryo discarded without consentAccording to the complainants, they underwent IVF treatment at a fertility clinic in 2024 after being assured of infertility treatment.During the procedure, 14 eggs were retrieved, resulting in four viable embryos—two Day-3 embryos and two Day-5 embryos. The couple paid Rs 25,000 separately for cryopreservation of the embryos for a period of 12 months, valid until March 4, 2025.The couple alleged that the clinic graded Day-5 embryos for frozen embryo transfer (FET); however, 3rd day embryos are more viable for ART. After the FET of Day 5 embryo was done, there was no fertility.According to the complainant, as day 5 embryos did not yield any positive result and they were negative for pregnancy, they requested transfer of the remaining Day-3 embryos. However, they were allegedly informed that those embryos had already been discarded despite the freezing period still being valid.Story continues below this adThe couple alleged that the clinic may have transferred the productive embryos as donor embryo to the third-party patients and enriched themselves. The couple stated that they have been deprived of having a child, which cannot be measured in monetary terms.The couple further alleged that they incurred a sum of Rs 2.8 lakh in all for the said treatment, including the freezing charges.Alleging that the embryos were destroyed without their consent and that the clinic had failed to follow mandatory procedures, the complainants sought compensation exceeding Rs 30 lakh, reimbursement of treatment expenses and punitive damages.Although the clinic entered appearance, they failed to file their written version within the prescribed time, resulting in forfeiture of their right to defend the complaint. While they later sought to rely on affidavits and medical literature, the commission held that, in the absence of pleadings, such evidence could not effectively rebut the complainants’ case.Story continues below this ad‘Breach of statutory obligations’The commission found that the clinic had accepted charges for preserving the embryos for one year, thereby creating a legitimate expectation that they would remain preserved during that period.“It is to be observed that within 2 months, the embryos were discarded without information, knowledge or consent of the complainants,” the commission noted.It further 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 constituted a direct breach of statutory obligations.“Discarding embryos results in irreparable harm permanently eliminating the couples chance of biological parenthood. The improper handling and premature disposal demonstrate gross negligence and lack of reasonable skill expected in such specialised procedures,” the commission remarked.‘Interfered with autonomy’It noted that the clinic’s actions unlawfully interfered with the couples autonomy and future family planning.The commission held that the clinic violated the statutory provisions which are related to IVF procedure and noted that there was a deficiency of service, negligence and also adapting unfair trade practice. However, it declined to order reimbursement of the treatment expenses or award punitive damages, reasoning that the complainants had received the treatment for which those charges were incurred.Taking into account the mental agony, inconvenience, health issues and financial loss suffered by the couple, the commission awarded Rs 5 lakh as compensation and Rs 30,000 towards litigation costs.Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana contact: 040 233 94 399 ) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.Ashish Shaji is a Senior Sub-Editor at The Indian Express, where he specializes in legal journalism. Combining a formal education in law with years of editorial experience, Ashish provides authoritative coverage and nuanced analysis of court developments and landmark judicial decisions for a national audience. Expertise Legal Core Competency: Ashish is a law graduate (BA LLB) from IME Law College, CCSU. This academic foundation allows him to move beyond surface-level reporting, offering readers a deep-dive into the technicalities of statutes, case law, and legal precedents. Specialized Legal Reporting: His work at The Indian Express focuses on translating the often-dense proceedings of India's top courts into clear, actionable news. His expertise includes: Judicial Analysis: Breaking down complex orders from the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Legal Developments: Monitoring legislative changes and their practical implications for the public and the legal fraternity. Industry Experience: With over 5 years in the field, Ashish has contributed to several niche legal and professional platforms, honing his ability to communicate complex information. His previous experience includes: Lawsikho: Gaining insights into legal education and practical law. Verdictum: Focusing on high-quality legal news and court updates. Enterslice: Working at the intersection of legal, financial, and advisory services. ... Read More Tags:consumer court