SINGAPORE - Thomson Fertility Centre (TFC), locked in a legal tussle over how much
it should pay a couple suing it for using the wrong sperm, wants the High Court
to settle two issues first.
One is whether the sums payable
should include the child's upkeep until she grows up and is financially
self-reliant.
Two, whether it should pay
provisional damages in case she suffers an ailment that is rooted in the
biological father's genes.
It wants the court to rule on
these issues in court papers filed last month. A High Court hearing has been
set for next month.
TFC and three others are being
sued over a mix-up in sperm samples that led to a woman having a baby, now two
years old, with a stranger's sperm instead of her husband's.
The woman, now 36, alleges
negligence and wants the court to assess the amount of damages payable to her,
citing personal losses, trauma and long-term costs for the child. The sums are
to be assessed by the court.
TFC has made clear that it
accepted responsibility for the clinical errors in the in-vitro fertilisation
(IVF) process that led to the incident in 2010. But, it also claims, this is
not tantamount to providing for the child's upkeep until she grows up and is
financially independent.
The mother of two, represented by
lawyer S. Palaniappan, cannot be named as a minor is involved.
The list of expenses that TFC,
defended by Senior Counsel Lok Vi Ming and two others, wants the court to rule
on include the child's education and upkeep in Beijing, where she is expected
to live with her parents and the older child, medical and other costs.
The court is also being asked to
rule if TFC should provide for provisional damages until 2035, when the child
turns 25, to offset any genetic condition or diseases "attributable to the
father's genes".
If the court agrees, these items
will be assessed together with the other damages sought.
It is understood that court
opinion abroad from limited cases is divided.
An Australian appeals court in
2009 awarded damages for the cost of raising an unwanted additional child
conceived through IVF. But a British case cited public policy reasons for not
providing damages for the child's upkeep.
K.C. Vijayan
No comments:
Post a Comment