A woman approached a fertility clinic for treatment and underwent multiple procedures, including IUI and IVF using donor eggs. After paying over ₹2.3 lakh, she was informed that only Grade III embryos had formed—low quality, with uncertain chances of success.

She declined to proceed with the embryo transfer and sought a full refund, alleging that she had not been properly counselled about her husband’s poor sperm quality or the risks involved.

The clinic argued that counselling had been documented, and that the couple had repeatedly declined the option of donor sperm. Clinical notes confirmed that poor sperm morphology had been explained, and the couple had signed off on treatment terms, including donor-related costs. The embryos were formed and frozen as per protocol, and the decision to discontinue was voluntary.

The case moved through the consumer dispute forums, with the District Forum awarding a partial refund. The State Commission later enhanced the refund, citing lack of counselling. But the National Commission reversed both orders.

It held that counselling had been documented, informed consent was obtained, and the treatment followed accepted standards. The failure to conceive, it ruled, did not imply negligence.

The judgment draws a sharp line: blank fields in a checklist don’t override signed clinical notes. Courts won’t infer negligence from outcome alone. In fertility care, where success is probabilistic, the duty lies in disclosure—not in guaranteeing results. And when that duty is met, the law stands by the practitioner.

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 15th July, 2025.