The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere failure of an IVF procedure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent or constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that there is a clear distinction between a mere breach of contract or medical failure and the offence of cheating, depending on the intention of the accused at the time of the inducement.

The Court added that an offering of IVF treatment cannot be equated with a legal guarantee of pregnancy, as such procedures have inherent failure rates depending on various physiological factors.

With these observations, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman fertility specialist who had approached the HC challenging a magistrate's order summoning her to face trial under Section 420 IPC.

Case in brief

The complaint was filed by Jaiveer Singh, who alleged that his wife had been unable to conceive since their marriage and hence, ge took her to Dr. Teotia (Applicant) at Teotia Hospital and Fertility Centre, Bulandshahr, for IVF treatment.

According to the complaint, the doctor stated that she could help his wife become pregnant through IVF and demanded ₹3.5 lakh, which the complainant paid in installments. However, the doctor allegedly issued a receipt for only ₹1.6 lakh.

It was further alleged that despite receiving treatment, his wife did not conceive. When the complainant asked the doctor to refund his money, she repeatedly put him off and ultimately refused, saying, "This is how we make money: by misleading people. We have connections in high places".

After alleging that the local police had taken no action, Singh approached the concerned court under Section 156(3) CrPC. The magistrate recorded his statement under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of his wife and another witness under Section 202 CrPC and thereafter, summoned the applicant-doctor under Section 420 IPC.

Challenging the criminal proceedings, the applicant-doctor approached the High Court.

She contended that no medical procedure, particularly IVF, has a guaranteed success rate. It was argued that therefore, the failure of IVF could not be treated as evidence of fraudulent intent or cheating at the inception of the transaction.

Opposing the petition, the complainant and the State submitted that the magistrate had rightly formed a prima facie opinion on the basis of the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court observed that the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC are deception of any person; fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to deliver any property; and an intention to deceive existing at the very inception of the transaction or promise.

It, however, clarified that a mere failure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent.

The bench noted that medical science is not an exact science and that a medical practitioner cannot guarantee a cure.

"The failure of a treatment or procedure does not, by itself, imply negligence, much less criminal liability or fraud under the Indian Penal Code," the Court observed as it referred to Supreme Court's judgment in Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr.

Applying these principles, the Court noted that IVF procedures have inherent failure rates that depend on numerous physiological factors.

It added that the complainant had failed to demonstrate any fraudulent intention on the part of the applicant at the time the medical consultation commenced.

"The money received represented professional fees charged for medical services and procedures rendered over time", it said.

The Court observed that allowing prosecution under Section 420 IPC for unsuccessful medical treatment would set a dangerous precedent, subjecting medical professionals to criminal liability whenever a medical procedure failed to yield the desired result.

It held that the dispute, at best, pertained to an unsuccessful medical procedure or a monetary claim and does not involve the requisite mens rea to constitute an offence under Section 420 I.P.C.

"Proceeding with the trial on these facts constitutes a clear abuse of the process of the Court," it said.

The Court also emphasized that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that criminal law cannot be set in motion as a matter of course.

It observed that merely producing two witnesses to support the allegations in a complaint is not sufficient. A magistrate must carefully scrutinise the oral and documentary evidence and determine whether an offence has prima facie been committed.

"The Magistrate is not a silent spectator when preliminary evidence is recorded before summoning the accused. The Magistrate must carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations", the Court said.

In the present case, it found that the magistrate had passed the summoning order in a "very casual and mechanical manner, without carefully applying his judicial mind".

Holding that no prima facie case was made out against the doctor, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the summoning order, the revisional court's order and the entire complaint proceedings.