JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 2^nd petitioner.

The petitioners are aged 44 and 55 years, respectively. They are issueless. The 1^st petitioner has undergone in- vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures at the 4th respondent hospital. Although the doctors have advised the 1^st petitioner to undergo another IVF procedure, the hospital has declined the procedure for the reason that the 2^nd petitioner has surpassed the age of 55 years as stipulated under Section 2 1 (g) (ii) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 ('Act', for brevity) and the petitioners fall within the purview of the term “commissioning couple” defined under the Act. Since the 1^st petitioner is 44 years of age and she is a “woman” as defined under Section 2 (1)(u) of the Act, and further, the

2^nd petitioner has given his consent for the procedure; the 1^st petitioner is entitled to undergo the procedure. The refusal of the h