Delhi High Court
Major Anamdeep Singh Dhingra vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 July, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : July 25,2016
+ W.P.(C) 5781/2016
MAJOR ANAMDEEP SINGH DHINGRA ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.S.S. Pandey, Advocate with
Mr.H.S. Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Vikram Jaitely, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The petitioner joined the Army Dental Corp. as a Short Service
Commission Officer on January 17, 2008. He was married in November,
2009. Unfortunately petitioner's wife suffered from Polycystic Ovarian
disease. Under strict medical supervision petitioner's wife could conceive
and good luck blessed the couple with a baby boy born on August 30, 2013.
But ill luck followed. The infant was suffering from a severe disability
having Hypoplastic Left Heard Syndrome. Adding a number to the
population of this country on August 30, 2013, after fourteen days the
unfortunate infant reduced the number by one to the population. He passed
away.
2. Desirous of having a progeny of their own, the petitioner and his wife
sought for a transfer to a family station so that they could avail the benefit of
specialised IVF facilities. The petitioner was posted at a family station and
is aggrieved by his posting to the 2136 Field Hospital at Pooh in Himachal
Pradesh. The reason why the petitioner questions the posting order is the
need to be with his wife who needs expert medical supervision in trying to
conceive. Polycystic Ovarian Disease with which petitioner's wife is
inflicted means that the ovum inside the ovary either does not form or forms
immature and hence unfit for fertilization by the sperm; the result is no
conception. A drug called Metformin is administered to females suffering
from Polycystic Ovarian disease. It cuts down the blood sugar level, which
are generally high due to insulin resistance in such patients. This helps the
ovum to mature for fertilization by the sperm. It also has to be ensured that
Luteinizing hormone is below a particular level to sustain the embryo after
fertilization takes place. All this requires constant monitoring.
3. Medical documents evince that petitioner's wife consulted the expert
on December 20, 2015 who started administering Metformin to petitioner's
wife under strict vigil, constantly monitoring her parameters. Medical
documents shows that the regular follicular monitoring over three months
suggest hormonal profile stabilising suggesting that petitioner's wife could
continue further treatment for conception. But the requisite hormonal
profile not being achieved oral medication continued. The wife of the
petitioner can, as per the medical expert, have intrauterine insemination and
for which the likely date is July 29, 2016. If first attempt of intrauterine
insemination fails two or three more attempts would be made in the next
menstrual cycles and if this fails the expert would go in for a test tube baby
in medical parlance 'In Vitro Fertilization'. Three-four attempts would be
made with an interval of month each if the first, second or third IVF fails. If
petitioner's wife conceives she would be under constant supervision because
she carries a very high risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (Deranged
sugar), preeclampsia (Deranged high blood pressure) throughout her
pregnancy. Age is a major concern because post 35, petitioner's wife would
hardly had any chance of conception.
4. The position, therefore, would be that if God willing, the intrauterine
insemination sustains by the end of the month the petitioner's wife would be
blessed with the baby after nine months. Meaning thereby petitioner's
presence with his wife would be a must for at least ten months reckoning
from now. If the first intrauterine insemination fails and the second
succeeds this period would be extended to eleven months. If even the
second fails, and number third succeeds, this period of stay would be
extended to a year. If intrauterine insemination fails and petitioner's wife is
to go for a test-tube baby, the first IVF attempt would be made after four
months from today. If it fails, the next after five months. If that fails the
next after six months.
5. The future is uncertain. But one thing is clear. In the next seven
months at least the petitioner's presence at Delhi is necessary. Whether
further presence is necessary would depend upon whether petitioner's wife
conceives.
6. Conscious of the fact that the Indian Army is short of doctors, but the
Indian Army can surely spare one officer.
7. It is a competing claim of hardships. The petitioner claims hardships
so do the respondents.
8. But in the competition we find petitioner's hardship to be more
pressing and of the kind that if the petitioner is not with his wife for at least
seven months, the cause for which the petitioner and his wife are struggling
for shall be lost forever.
9. The policy dated October 20, 2009 regarding treatment at Assisted
Reproductive Technology for officers of the Indian Army on which the
respondents rely may strictly not vest a power with the competent authority
to permit the petitioner to stay on in Delhi, but we find that there is no
negative stipulation in the policy.
10. Under the circumstances in view of the exceptional facts of the instant
case we dispose of the petition quashing the posting and the movement
orders dated May 9, 2016 and June 16, 2016 respectively. We direct that the
petitioner should be posted at a duty station in the NCR where he can stay
with his wife and be properly monitored by the Gynaecologist under whom
petitioner's wife is being treated.
11. No costs.
CM No.23840/2016
In view of the order passed above disposing of W.P.(C)
No.5781/2016, instant application is also disposed of as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(PRATIBHA RANI)
JUDGE
JULY 25, 2016
'hkaur'
