ROOPA P. JOY vs UNION OF INDIA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
1 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
ST
TUESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 10TH BHADRA, 1948
WA NO. 1318 OF 2026
JUDGMENT DATED 01.06.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26470 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/WRIT PETITIONERS:
1 ROOPA P. JOY, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O AJITH T., TC 28/1702, SUJITH,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN – 695 035.
2 AJITH T., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O THOMAS VARGHESE, TC 28/1702, SUJITH,
VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 695 035.
BY ADVS.
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001.
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN – 695 001.
3 THE KERALA STATE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND
SURROGACY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, DISTRICT
HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 035.
4 SAMAD HOSPITALS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
V.V.ROAD, PATTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 035.
BY ADV. SMT.JOLIMA GEORGE, CGC
R1 BY O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
R2 & R3 BY SMT. A. SREEKALA, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2026, THE
COURT ON 01.09.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
2 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
‘CR’
K. NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.A No. 1318 of 2026
---------------------------------------------------------
st
Dated this the 1 day of September, 2026
JUDGMENT
Johnson John, J.
This intra-court appeal is filed by the writ petitioners challenging
the judgment dated 01.06.2026 in W.P.(C) No. 26470 of 2025
dismissing the writ petition.
2. In the writ petition, the following reliefs are sought for:
i) To declare that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation)
Act, 2021 to the extent it defines the maximum age for intending couple to
seek Surrogacy services from licensed clinics is violative of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India;
ii) To declare that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act,
2021 to the extent it defines the maximum age for intending couple to seek
Surrogacy services is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
st
iii) To declare that the 1 petitioner, who comes within the permissible age
limit prescribed under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) and section 2(1)(s) of the Act, is
eligible to avail ART services utilizing the embryos which were frozen
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
3 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
when the petitioners were within the age limit prescribed under the Act,
nd
regardless of the age of the 2 petitioner.
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction
or order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to permit the petitioners to
th
continue availing surrogacy services from the 4 respondent utilizing their
frozen embryos after obtaining requisite documents and certification
essential for continuing the surrogacy process;
3. In the impugned judgment, the learned single Judge found
that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment in Sajithanand
S.@ Sajitha Manoharan and another vs. Union of India and
Other s [2026(3) KHC 549].
4. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel
th
for the appellants submitted that the 4 respondent — Samad Hospitals
th
is only a formal party and hence, notice to the 4 respondent is to be
dispensed with. Accepting the submission of the learned counsel for
th
the appellants, issuance of notice to the 4 respondent was dispensed
with.
5. Heard Sri. Sanal Kumar S., the learned Senior counsel for
the appellants, Smt. O.M. Shalina, learned Deputy Solicitor General of
India appearing for the first respondent and Smt. A. Sreekala,
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
4 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and
3.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the
learned single Judge failed to examine the specific factual and legal
issues arising in this case and mechanically applied the decision of this
Court in Sajithanand (supra) and that the appellants commenced the
surrogacy process during the year 2022 and at the relevant time, the
second appellant was admittedly below the upper age limit of 55
years. It is also argued that pursuant to the treatment undertaken,
embryos created from the gametes of the appellants were successfully
fertilised and cryopreserved on 30.08.2022.
7. It is pointed out that on 21.6.2023, the District Medical
Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, has issued the certificate of medical
indication for intending couples certifying the medical necessity for
resorting to surrogacy and therefore, the appellants are eligible to
proceed with surrogacy process in terms of the statutory framework.
The appellants along with the surrogate mother, filed C.M.P No. 670 of
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
5 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
2025 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-XI,
Thiruvananthapuram seeking orders regarding parentage and custody
of the child proposed to be born through the surrogacy arrangement
and the said application was allowed by the learned Magistrate as per
order dated 03.05.2025. Thereafter, when the appellants approached
the third respondent — Kerala State Assisted Reproductive Technology
and Surrogacy Board on 27.05.2025 for eligibility certificate under
Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
(‘Surrogacy Act’ for short), the same was denied on the ground that
the second appellant has crossed the prescribed age limit.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the age
restrictions under the Surrogacy Act could not be applied in a manner
that retrospectively defeats reproductive procedure which had already
substantially progressed. It is argued that the learned single Judge
failed to examine the crucial issue as to whether the relevant date for
determining eligibility under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) is the date on which
the reproductive procedure is commenced and embryos are created
or the date on which the eligibility certificate is issued. It is also
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
6 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
argued that the interpretation followed by the learned single Judge
results in an unreasonable classification that offends Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, inasmuch as two intending couples identically
placed in every other respect having created and cryopreserved
embryos while both partners were within the statutory age limits and
denying access to surrogacy solely on account of the subsequent
attainment of age by the second appellant.
9. The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the
appropriate authority under Section 35 of the Surrogacy Act is
required to consider the age of the intending couple as on the date of
issuance of the eligibility certificate and that surrogacy procedures
cannot be conducted before satisfying all the conditions specified in
sub-clause (iii) of Section 4 of the Surrogacy Act, which contemplates
possession of an eligibility certificate for the surrogate mother and the
intending couple. It is pointed out that the Surrogacy Act came into
force with effect from 25.01.2022 and the averments in paragraph 3
of the writ petition would show that the appellants had initiated the
proceedings to undergo surrogacy from the year 2022 and that the
embryos were kept frozen on 30.08.2022. Therefore, admittedly, the
surrogacy proceedings commenced after the coming into force of the
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
7 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
Surrogacy Act on 25.01.2022 without obtaining the eligibility
certificate for the intending couple from the appropriate authority.
10. It is also pointed out that the objective of the enactment
was for prohibition of commercial surrogacy and to prevent incidents
of unethical practices, exploitation of surrogate mothers and
abandonment of children born out of surrogacy and import of human
embryos and gametes and therefore, considering the objectives and
purpose behind the Act, it cannot be held that fixing an upper age
limit for the intending couple as on the day of certification is against
the principles of equality and there is no justifiable grounds to
interfere with the findings in the impugned judgment which followed
the reasonings in Sajithanand (supra).
11. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 also supported the arguments of the learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the first respondent.
12. The points that arise for determination are the following:
1.Whether the present case comes under the category of cases where the
surrogacy procedure commenced prior to the commencement of the
Surrogacy Act?
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
8 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
2. Whether the contentions challenging the constitutional validity of
Section 4(iii)(c)(l) of the Surrogacy Act is legally sustainable?
Points 1 & 2:
13. Section 4 of the Surrogacy Act is extracted below for
convenient reference:
“ 4: Regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy procedures.-- On and from the
date of commencement of this Act,-
(i) no place including a surrogacy clinic shall be used or cause to be used by
any person for conducting surrogacy or surrogacy procedures, except for the
purposes specified in clause (ii) and after satisfying all the conditions specified
in clause (iii);
(ii) no surrogacy or surrogacy procedures shall be conducted, undertaken,
performed or availed of, except for the following purposes, namely:-
(a) when an intending couple has a medical indication necessitating gestational
surrogacy:
Provided that a couple of Indian origin or an intending woman who intends to
avail surrogacy, shall obtain a certificate of recommendation from the Board
on an application made by the said persons in such form and manner as may be
prescribed.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this sub-clause and item (I) of sub-clause
(a) of clause (iii) the expression "gestational surrogacy" means a practice
whereby a surrogate mother carries a child for the intending couple through
implantation of embryo in her womb and the child is not genetically related to
the surrogate mother;
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
9 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
(b)when it is only for altruistic surrogacy purposes;
(c)when it is not for commercial purposes or for commercialisation of
surrogacy or surrogacy procedures;
(d)when it is not for producing children for sale, prostitution or any other form
of exploitation; and
(e) any other condition or disease as may be specified by regulations made by
the Board;
(iii) no surrogacy or surrogacy procedures shall be conducted, undertaken,
performed or initiated, unless the Director or in-charge of the surrogacy
clinic and the person qualified to do so are satisfied, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, that the following conditions have been fulfilled,
namely:-
(a) the intending couple is in possession of a certificate of essentiality issued
by the appropriate authority, after satisfying itself, for the reasons to be
recorded in writing, about the fulfilment of the following conditions,
namely:-
(I) a certificate of a medical indication in favour of either or both members of
the intending couple or intending woman necessitating gestational surrogacy
from a District Medical Board.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this item, the expression "District
Medical Board" means a medical board under the Chairpersonship of Chief
Medical Officer or Chief Civil Surgeon or Joint Director of Health Services
of the district and comprising of at least two other specialists, namely, the
chief gynaecologist or obstetrician and chief paediatrician of the district;
(II) an order concerning the parentage and custody of the child to be
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
10 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
born through surrogacy, has been passed by a Court of the Magistrate of the
first class or above on an application made by the intending couple or the
intending woman and the surrogate mother, which shall be the birth affidavit
after the surrogate child is born; and
(III) an insurance coverage of such amount and in such manner as may
be prescribed in favour of the surrogate mother for a period of thirty-six
months covering post-partum delivery complications from an insurance
company or an agent recognised by the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority established under the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999);
(b) the surrogate mother is in possession of an eligibility certificate issued
by the appropriate authority on fulfilment of the following conditions,
namely:-
(I) no woman, other than an ever married woman having a child of her own
and between the age of 25 to 35 years on the day of implantation, shall be a
surrogate mother or help in surrogacy by donating her egg or oocyte or
otherwise;
(II) a willing woman shall act as a surrogate mother and be permitted to
undergo surrogacy procedures as per the provisions of this Act:
Provided that the intending couple or the intending woman shall approach
the appropriate authority with a willing woman who agrees to act as a
surrogate mother;
(III) no woman shall act as a surrogate mother by providing her own
gametes;
(IV) no woman shall act as a surrogate mother more than once in her
lifetime:
Provided that the number of attempts for surrogacy procedures on the
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
11 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
surrogate mother shall be such as may be prescribed; and
(V) a certificate of medical and psychological fitness for surrogacy and
surrogacy procedures from a registered medical practitioner;
(c) an eligibility certificate for intending couple is issued separately by
the appropriate authority on fulfilment of the following conditions,
namely:-
(I) the intending couple are married and between the age of 23 to 50 years
in case of female and between 26 to 55 years in case of male on the day
of certification;
(II) the intending couple have not had any surviving child biologically or
through adoption or through surrogacy earlier:
Provided that nothing contained in this item shall affect the intending
couple who have a child and who is mentally or physically challenged
or suffers from life threatening disorder or fatal illness with no permanent
cure and approved by the appropriate authority with due medical
certificate from a District Medical Board; and
(III) such other conditions as may be specified by the regulations.”
14. In Sajithanand (supra), it was held as follows in
paragraphs 21 to 24:
“ 21. By prescribing age limits, the Act seeks to prevent high risk
pregnancies and ensure that reproductive technologies are not misused. The
age restrictions does not infringe Art.21, but it actually advances its protective
scope as argued by the learned CGC. Age restrictions act as a safeguard to
ensure that only women within a safe and appropriate age bracket, capable of
informed consent and physical endurance participate in the surrogacy. The age
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
12 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
restrictions satisfy the doctrine of proportionality as evolved in constitutional
jurisprudence. The age restrictions are suitable as they directly address medical
and ethical concerns. Unregulated reproductive practice can lead to serious
harm. The age restrictions are not arbitrary. It strikes a careful balance between
individual choice and public health. Reproductive rights though fundamental
are not absolute. They are subject to reasonable restrictions.
22. The age restrictions are grounded on medical sciences, ethical
necessity and social welfare and they meet the constitutional standards of
reasonableness and proportionality. Age restrictions are not an infringement of
rights, but it act as a protective frame work. Regulation of reproductive
technology is not a denial of liberty, but a structured exercise of it.
23. The objective behind age restriction is to ensure safe reproduction,
child welfare and medical viability. Thus classification based on age is
scientifically grounded and directly linked to the purpose. Reproductive
technologies affect the family structure, child rights and public morality. State
can impose reasonable restrictions in larger societal interest. Fertility,
pregnancy outcomes and risks associated with child birth are directly linked to
age. The age restrictions satisfies the test of proportionality. It is a measured
restriction not an excessive one.
24. The age limits prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
are constitutionally valid and they represents a carefully designed regulatory
mechanism to ensure that surrogacy is practiced in a safe, ethical and non
exploitative manner consistent with constitutional principles.”
15. In Vijaya Kumari S v. Union of India [2025 KHC 6856],
the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
13 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
“15.9. We therefore hold that creation of embryos and freezing of the
same is crystallization of the said process as it clearly demonstrates the
intention of the couples i.e., intending couples, in the instant cases. The
earlier stages, namely, (i) Visit to surrogacy clinic, (ii) Counselling of the
patient, (iii) Obtaining of the various permissions / certificates from
Appropriate Authorities under S.4 of the Act, (iv) Extraction of gametes of
Stage A, are no doubt part of surrogacy procedure but are stages prior to the
crystallization of the intention of the couple to undertake a surrogacy
procedure an interpretation we are giving in the context of age barriers.
Therefore, when there was no age restriction at the stage of creation of
embryos and freezing them i.e., prior to the enforcement of the Act, when
the intending couples are at the threshold of Stage B, the age restriction
under the Act cannot be permitted to operate retrospectively on such
intending couples as in the present cases so as to frustrate not just the
surrogacy procedure but also their right to have a surrogate child or become
parents, the latter being a constitutional right under Art.21 of the
Constitution.
15.10. Therefore, the rule against retrospective operation of statutes applies
in the instant case in order to preserve the rights of intending couples such as
the petitioners / applicant in the present case. If we do not apply the
aforesaid principle of interpretation of statutes we would failing in our duty
to uphold the constitutional right of such intending couples under Art.21 of
the Constitution. Therefore, we hold that the age bar does not apply to
intending couples such as the ones we are considering in the present cases.
16. Thus, if an intending couple had -
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
14 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
(i) commenced the surrogacy procedure prior to the commencement of the
Act i.e., 25/01/2022; and
(ii) were at the stage of creation of embryos and freezing after extraction of
gametes (Stage A of the diagram); and
(iii) on the threshold of transfer of embryos to the uterus of the surrogate
mother (Stage B of the diagram)
The age restriction under S.4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act would not apply. The
competent authority, on being satisfied about the aforesaid conditions (i), (ii)
and (iii) above shall issue the certification provided R.14 of the Rules are
satisfied by the intending couples.
17. In the result, we hold that S.4(iii)(c)(I) does not have retrospective
operation and therefore, would not apply to the petitioners and applicants
who are the intending couples. We reiterate that we have not considered the
validity of the age restrictions in this order but only the applicability of the
same to the petitioners and the applicants herein. The writ petitions and the
application are allowed in the aforesaid terms.”
16. In Rajitha v. Union of India [2025 (2) KLT 308], a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court held thus in paragraph 29:
“ 29 . The scheme of the Act of 2021 thus provides a legal framework
for regulating surrogacy. It prohibits commercial surrogacy to prevent
exploitation while permitting altruistic surrogacy. The Act allows
married couples with a medical necessity to opt for surrogacy. It
provides for the rights and consent of surrogate mothers, mandates the
registration of surrogacy clinics, and establishes National and State
Surrogacy Boards. The Act focuses on prohibiting unethical practices
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
15 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
like sex selection, child abandonment, and forced surrogacy. The
intention of the Act is thus to ensure ethical and legal safeguards. This
is important when interpreting the age eligibility for an intending
mother, particularly whether the upper limit of 50 years excludes
women who have turned 50. Applying the principle of purposive
interpretation, the provision on age eligibility should be understood in a
way that ensures ethical surrogacy practices rather than creating
unnecessary restrictions. The Act does not seek to arbitrarily deny
opportunities for intending couples but to regulate surrogacy within a
structured legal framework. Therefore, there is no indication in the
scheme of the Act to deny eligibility to intending woman up to her
reaching 51 years.”
17. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that at the
time when the fertilised embryos were kept frozen, the appellants
were within the age limit prescribed under the Surrogacy Act. But,
admittedly, the appellants have not obtained the eligibility certificate
under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Act before the
commencement of the surrogacy procedure and for the purpose of
eligibility certificate, the age as on the day of certification is crucial
and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
cannot be accepted
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
16 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
18. Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellants
is that in Vijaya Kumari’s case (supra) the Honourable Supreme
Court held that the age restrictions under the Surrogacy Act cannot be
permitted to operate retrospectively to intending couples who
commenced the surrogacy procedure prior to the commencement of
the Act from utilising the embryos which were frozen, inasmuch as the
Surrogacy Act has no retrospective operation. But, the averments in
paragraph 3 of the writ petition clearly shows that the appellants
initiated the proceedings to undergo surrogacy and the fertilized
embryos were kept frozen on 30.08.2022, which is after the
commencement of the Act on 25.01.2022 and therefore, we find that
the present case cannot be included in the category of cases where
surrogacy procedure commenced prior to the coming into force of the
Act.
19. It is pertinent to note that Section 4 of the Surrogacy Act
prohibits the use of any place including a surrogacy clinic for
conducting surrogacy or surrogacy procedures except for the purposes
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
17 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
specified in sub clause (ii) and after satisfying all the conditions
specified in sub clause (iii). Sections 39 and 41 prescribes the
punishments for contravention of provisions of the Act and therefore,
initiation of the proceedings to undergo surrogacy after the
commencement of the Act without certification which attract penal
consequences cannot be accepted as a valid ground for claiming
exemption.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants challenges the
constitutional validity of Section 4(iii)(c)(I) on the ground that it is
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. An attempt
is also made to compare the various provisions of the Assisted
Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘Act, 2021’ for
short) with that of the provisions in the Surrogacy Act in support of
the contention that the entire scheme of the Surrogacy Act is violative
of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
21. The rule of purposive interpretation requires the court to
adopt an object oriented approach keeping in mind the ultimate
objective of the enactment which the legislature has in its view and to
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
18 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
make such construction so as to suppress the mischief and advance
the remedy to prevent the enactment from becoming futile.
22. It is pertinent to note that the objects and reasons behind
the Surrogacy Act and the Act, 2021 are different and it is well settled
that the interpretation of phrases in one statute should not be
conflated with interpretations from another, especially when the
wording, policy and legislative intent differ. The statement of objects
and reasons in the Surrogacy Act reads thus:
“ Statement of Objects and Reasons. - India has emerged as a
surrogacy hub for couples from different countries for past few years.
There have been reported incidents of unethical practices, exploitation of
surrogate mothers, abandonment of children born out of surrogacy and
import of human embryos and gametes. Widespread condemnation of
commercial surrogacy in India has been regularly reflected in different
print and electronic media for last few years. The Law Commission of
th
India has, in its 228 Report, also recommended for prohibition of
commercial surrogacy by enacting a suitable legislation. Due to lack of
legislation to regulate surrogacy, the practice of surrogacy has been
misused by the surrogacy clinics, which leads to rampant of commercial
surrogacy and unethical practices in the said area of surrogacy.”
23. It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India
does not prohibit a reasonable classification in order to accomplish the
specific objects to be achieved, provided such reasonable classification
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
19 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
should not be artificial or arbitrary and that it must be based on
significant differentiation and we find that the age restriction in the
Surrogacy Act is based on a reasonable relationship with the required
aim sought to be achieved by the law and therefore, we find that the
contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard are
not legally sustainable. The points are answered against the
appellants and hence, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
sd/-
K. NATARAJAN,
JUDGE.
sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE.
Rv
W.A No.1318/2026 : :
20 CNR : KLHC010492172026
2026:KER:66329
APPENDIX OF WA NO. 1318 OF 2026
APPELLANTS’ ANNEXURES:
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY
KJK HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RELATING TO
TREATMENT UNDERGONE BY THE 1ST APPELLANT FROM
24.11.2016 TO 26.11.2016 FOR PRIMARY INFERTILITY,
LAPAROSCOPIC MYOMECTOMY AND DIAGNOSTIC
HYSTEROSCOPY.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ICST TREATMENT SUMMARY ISSUED
BY KJK HOSPITAL EVIDENCING ART TREATMENT
UNDERGONE BY THE APPELLANTS INCLUDING OVUM
PICK UP ON 13.07.2018, FERTILIZATION BY ICSI AND
EMBRYO TRANSFER ON 16.07.2018.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FET (FROZEN EMBRYO TRANSFER)
TREATMENT SUMMARY ISSUED BY KJK HOSPITAL
SHOWING THAWING AND TRANSFER OF FROZEN
EMBRYOS ON 04.10.2018.
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FET TREATMENT SUMMARY
ISSUED BY KJK HOSPITAL EVIDENCING A FURTHER
FROZEN EMBRYO TRANSFER PROCEDURE UNDERTAKEN
ON 15.07.2019.
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY
SAMAD HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RELATING
TO OVUM RETRIEVAL PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN BY
THE 1ST APPELLANT ON 11.05.2021.
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY
SAMAD HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RELATING
TO OVUM PICK UP AND DUAL STIMULATION
PROCEDURES UNDERTAKEN FROM 29.05.2021 TO
30.05.2021.
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY
SAMAD HOSPITAL RELATING TO IVF TREATMENT AND
SPERM E3G±39= RETRIEVAL BY TESE UNDERGONE BY
THE 2ND APPELLANT FROM 02.12.2021 TO 03.12.2021.
RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL
/True Copy/
PS to Judge
Rv