Medical negligence in assisted reproductive technology: a comparative legislative analysis of India and selected jurisdictions

Abhinav Kuchipudi; Aditi Jani

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20263479

Authors

Abhinav Kuchipudi Department of Law, GLS University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Aditi Jani Department of Law, GLS University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20263479

Keywords:

Assisted reproductive technology, Legislative analysis, Medical negligence

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has rapidly advanced treatment of infertility and created new forms of medical malpractice that strain existing legal structures. This study investigates the treatment of medical malpractice with ART and analyzes the cases of India, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, and New Zealand. This examination is both doctrinal and comparative. It studies primary legal documents, such as statutes, regulation, and case law, and focuses on recent publications. Common themes of negligence include failure to obtain informed consent, confused identity of embryos, false representation regarding success rates, violation of medical confidentiality, and insufficient regulatory oversight of fertility clinics. Based on comparisons, states with systems of independent accreditation and ethics - driven oversight have stronger protections. The ART Regulation Act, 2021 is a major improvement for India, but has significant shortcomings concerning negligence and compensation issues in ART. Clearer definitions and thresholds of negligence and stronger regulations and oversight of ART with mandatory periodic inspections and grievance redress mechanisms are needed to protect the rights of ART clients in India.

References

Jamwal VDS, Yadav AK. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021: A Step in the Right Direction. Indian J Community Med. 2023;48(1):4-6.

Archana K. A Critical Review of Right to Abortion of Adolescents and Reproductive Justice in India. GLS Law J. 2026;8(2):37-45.

Goedeke S, Shepherd D, Rodino IS. Fertility stakeholders' concerns regarding payment for egg and sperm donation in New Zealand and Australia. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2021;14:8-19.

Bell K. An Overview of Assisted Reproduction in Australia and Directions for Social Research. Int J Emerg Technol Soc. 2006;4(1):15-27.

Wallace EM. Rapid Review of Assisted Reproductive Technology and In Vitro Fertilisation Regulation and Accreditation in Australia, Department of Health, Victoria State Government. 2025. Available at: https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025 - 09/rapid - review - of - assisted - reproductive - technology - and - in - vitro - fertilisation - regulation - and - accreditation - in - australia.pdf. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

New Assisted Reproductive Technology and surrogacy act for Western Australia from mid - 2027 (no date) WA Health, Government of Western Australia. Available at: https://www.health.wa. gov.au/Articles/N_R/New - assisted - reproductive - technology - and - surrogacy - legislation - for - WA Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Johnson L. Regulation of assisted reproductive treatment (ART) in Australia & current ethical issues. Indian J Med Res. 2014;140:S9-12.

University of New South Wales. Assisted Reproductive Technology in Australia and New Zealand 2023. 2025 Available at: https://www.u nsw.edu.au/content/dam/pdfs/medicine - health/npesu /research - reports/2025 - 09 - anzard/2025 - 09 - Assisted - Reproductive - Technology - in - Australia - and - New - Zealand - 2023.pdf. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Bettocchi C, Busetto GM, Carrieri G, Cormio L. Practical Clinical Andrology. Springer, Cham; 2023.

Turuban P. Infertility: How Switzerland is failing many couples who want a Child, SWI swissinfo.ch. Available at: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/demo graphics/infertility - how - switzerland - is - failing - many - couples - who - want - a - child/77441877. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Vayena E, Peterson HB, Adamson D, Nygren KG. Assisted reproductive technologies in developing countries: are we caring yet? Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):413-6.

Faa G, Manchia M, Fanos V. Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A New Player in the Foetal Programming of Childhood and Adult Diseases? Pediatr Rep. 2024;16(2):329-38.

Geyter CD. Assisted Reproductive Medicine in Switzerland. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142(1718):w13569.

Iliadou AN, Öberg AS, Pege J, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Olofsson JI, Holte J, et al. The Uppsala-Stockholm Assisted Reproductive Techniques (UppStART) study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e028866.

Pinborg A. Assisted Reproductive Technology and safety in the Nordic countries, NordForsk. 2019. Available at: https://www.nordforsk.org/sv/projects/ assisted - reproductive - technology - and - safety - nordic – countries. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Stroka M. Swedish study: Assisted Reproductive Techniques Conception not linked with depression, Psychiatry Advisor. 2025. Available at: https://www. psychiatryadvisor.com/news/swedish - study - assisted - reproductive - techniques - conception - not - linked - with - depression/. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Bhattacharjya A. Reproductive Autonomy in a Globalized Context: The Supreme Court’s Impact on Abortion Laws in India. GLS Law J. 2025;7(1):55-6.

The Swedish National Council on Medical Ethics. Assisted reproduction – ethical aspects summary of a report. Available at: https://smer.se/wp - content/ uploads/2013/03/Slutversion - sammanfattning - eng - Assisted - reproduction.pdf. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Vignoli D, Tocchioni V, Lazzari E, Cozzani M. Attitudes towards Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Vignette Study. European Population Conference. 2026. Available at: https://epc 2026.eaps.nl/uploads/260375. Accessed on 11 June 2026.

Daniels KR. Assisted human reproduction in New Zealand: The contribution of ethics. Eubios J Asian Int Bioethics. 1998;8:79-81.

Jones DG. Where does New Zealand stand on permitting research on human embryos? N Z Med J. 2014;127(1399):74-82.

Fitzgerald RP, Legge M, Rewi P, Robinson EJ. Excluding indigenous bioethical concerns when regulating frozen embryo storage: An Aotearoa New Zealand case study. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2019;8:10-22.

Atkin B. Regulation of Assisted Human Reproduction: The Recent New Zealand Model in Comparison with Other Systems. 11 Revue Juridique Polynésienne. 2014:81-100.

Barrett C. Assisted Reproductive Technology in New Zealand 2021. Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. Available at: https://acart.health.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/ACART/Publications/ANZARD - 2021 - Report - 1.docx. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

Pillai AV. Right to Access to Human Reproductive Technologies under Indian Legal Framework: A Bird’s View. GLS Law J. 2019;1(1):8.

Mark SM. Commercial Surrogacy with Special Reference to Capabilities Approach. GLS Law J. 2021;3:1.

Kumari P. Reproductive Technology in India: Ethical & Legal Facets. Surrogacy: Law, Policy & Practice, Victorious Publishers (India); 2020

Sharma PJ, Mittal M. Critical Analysis of the Current Assisted Reproductive Technology Guidelines. Int J Infertil Fetal Med. 2017;8:113-9.

Kotiswaran P, Banerjee S. Counterproductive regulation of assisted reproductive technologies: a review of the assisted reproductive technologies bill, 2020. Natl Law School India Rev. 2021;33(2):7.

Bhardwaj A, Kumari S. Assisted Reproductive Technology procedures and related Malpractices: A Holistic Overview of the Indian Legal system. J Informat Educ Res. 2025;5:3.

ICMR, Government of India. Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. Available at: https://www.icmr.gov.in/the-assisted-reproductive-technology-regulation-act-2021-and-the-surrogacy-regulation-act-2021. Accessed on 15 June 2026.

Telang D. Women and Healthcare in India: A Socio - Legal Analysis of the Contraceptive Burden on Women. GLS Law J. 2026;8(1):28-40.

Macha P, Reddy R, Kalbande A, Kumar V. Embryologists’ perspective on medical, legal, and ethical frameworks in assisted reproductive technologies in India: A narrative review. Asian Pacific J Reprod. 2025;14(2):49-55.

Kanoon. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda (2008) 2 SCC 1. Available at: https://indian kanoon.org/doc/438423/. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

Kanoon. M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital Ano Anr. Vs. Harjol Ahulwalia Through K.S. Ahulwalia and Anr. 1998 4 SCC 39. Available at: https://indian kanoon.org/doc/1715546/. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

Kanoon. Sushil Kumar vs Javitri Hospital & Test Tube Baby Center, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P 2023. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68517266/. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

CaseMine. Johathan Yearworth and others Vs. North Bristol NHS Trust (2009) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Available at: https://www. casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff6fd60d03e7f57ea5505. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

Justia U.S. Law. Perry - Rogers v. Fasano Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 276 A.D.2d 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division/2000/?page=4. Accessed on 12 June 2026.

John JN, Gorman S, Scales D, Gorman J. Online Misleading Information About Women's Reproductive Health: A Narrative Review. J Gen Intern Med. 2025;40(5):1123-31.

Dhanoya T, O'Marcaigh K, Sambare T, Sarris I, Vigneswaran K. #misinformation: The perils of using social media for medical advice regarding infertility. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2025;28(1):2506787.