Archive · 26 Aug 2026
Maharashtra Commission Orders IVF Doctor to Pay Surrogacy Compensation
A man went to an IVF doctor to try to have a child through surrogacy.
He used donor eggs, his own sperm and a surrogate mother.
He paid Rs 5.50 lakh for the procedures in 2015 and 2016.
The consumer commission said the doctor charged money unfairly.
It specifically questioned a Rs 50,000 legal fee that was not properly accounted for.
The commission also said the doctor kept the man’s frozen semen sample for more than ten years without permission.
The doctor was ordered to pay the man more than Rs 10 lakh.
He must also return the frozen sample within eight weeks.
The Maharashtra consumer commission found an IVF doctor guilty of deficiency in service.
The case involved an unmarried man seeking a child through IVF-ICSI and surrogacy.
The complainant paid Rs 5.50 lakh during 2015-16, including an unaccounted Rs 50,000 legal charge.
The doctor retained the complainant’s frozen semen sample for more than a decade without consent.
The commission ordered over Rs 10 lakh in compensation and directed the sample’s return within eight weeks.
- Who
- A 49-year-old unmarried man, an IVF doctor, and the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
- What
- The commission found the doctor guilty of deficiency in service and unfair and deceptive practices, ordered compensation of over Rs 10 lakh, and directed the return of a frozen semen sample.
- When
- The complainant paid the fees during 2015-16; the commission’s order was passed last week.
- Where
- Maharashtra.
- Why
- The commission said the doctor charged exorbitant and unauthorized amounts and retained the semen sample for more than a decade without consent.
- Compensation ordered
- Over Rs 10 lakh
- Amount paid
- Rs 5.50 lakh during 2015-16
- Disputed charge
- Rs 50,000 listed as a legal charge
- Procedure sought
- IVF-ICSI using donor eggs, the complainant’s sperm and a surrogate mother
- Retained material
- The complainant’s frozen semen sample
- Return deadline
- Within eight weeks
- Finding
- Deficiency in service, unfair method and deceptive practice