Ahmedabad: The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ahmedabad bench, has rejected a Central govt employee’s claim for reimbursement of Rs 5.7 lakh towards in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, holding that the treatment was undertaken beyond the prescribed age limit and without fulfilling the conditions for reimbursement.The case involved an officer of the India Meteorological Department (IMD), who married in 2019 at the age of 48. His wife was 44 at the time. Considering their advancing age, the couple opted for IVF treatment and subsequently became parents of twins.In Dec 2019, the officer sought departmental permission for his wife to undergo IVF treatment but received no response. Following the delivery, he sought reimbursement of Rs 5.7 lakh for IVF treatment and Rs 1.7 lakh towards delivery and post-delivery expenses.The department rejected his claim, citing a 2011 office memorandum that restricts reimbursement of IVF treatment to women aged between 21 and 39 years. It also pointed out that the treatment had not received prior approval and was not undertaken at a private facility recommended by the govt medical authority.The officer approached the tribunal, challenging the age restriction as arbitrary and unconstitutional. He argued that medical science had advanced considerably since the policy was framed in 2011, making the prescribed age limit outdated.Rejecting his contention, the tribunal observed that the outcome of the treatment in an individual case could not determine the validity of the age criterion.“The office memorandum does not prohibit any couple from undergoing IVF treatment. It only lays down the conditions on which the expenditure on such treatment will be reimbursed from public funds. The contention that it takes away the right of a couple to have a child is therefore misconceived; what the office memorandum regulates is the extent of the state’s financial liability, not the choice of the couple,” the tribunal said.The tribunal refused to hold the age criterion arbitrary and said, “The submission that medical science has advanced since 2011 may be a ground for the govt to review its policy; it is not a ground for this tribunal to substitute its own view for that of the expert body, particularly when no material has been placed before us to show that the criterion has lost its basis.”However, it directed the department to examine his separate claim for Rs 1.7 lakh towards delivery and post-delivery expenses.
