A case of human trafficking against Dr Bharat Atit, a gynaecologist in Ahmedabad, has brought to light the seamy side of surrogacy and adoption in India. The Ahmedabad Crime Branch says Atit sold two babies to a childless couple from Porbandar, who were under his treatment, for Rs.8 lakh.
The crime branch police stumbled upon the case while investigating a rape complaint filed by Manjula Thakur, aka Mona, of Ahmedabad against a Rajkumar Yadhav last July. The police said Rajkumar was Manjula's boyfriend and that she filed a false complaint after they quarrelled over money she had received for selling her infant son.
“We found that Manjula had received Rs.2 lakh from Dr Atit and that Rajkumar took away most of it,” said Himanshu Shukla, deputy commissioner of police (crime), Ahmedabad. Atit's wife, Malini, is a former mayor.
“Dr Atit being a prominent doctor, we investigated the matter carefully,” said Shukla. The police, however, could not find out the baby's whereabouts. On learning from Manjula that another woman also had sold her newborn son, the police found out that Atit had been in touch with Dilip Vyas of Porbandar at the time of the alleged sale. “Dr Vyas told us that Dr Atit had given them two baby boys,” said Inspector Haripalsinh Rathod.
A DNA test showed that Vyas and Dina were not the biological parents of the babies. The police then tested DNAs of Rajkumar, Manjula and her ex-husband, Harikrishna Ahari. The test, the police said, showed that one of the babies was of Manjula and Ahari.
Manjula then revealed her story. She said she was from Rajasthan and had come to live in Ahmedabad after divorcing her husband in 2007. While working for a catering company, she met Rajkumar and they became close. One day, while taking their children to meet Manjula, Ahari requested her to resume relation with him and she consented. They broke up again later, and Rajkumar and Manjula moved in together. He found that she was pregnant with Ahari's child and took her to a clinic for abortion.
The doctor declined to do the abortion as Manjula was five months pregnant. “While searching for a doctor to conduct the abortion, Manjula and Rajkumar met Neeru, a nurse at Atit's Shree Maternity Home. She acted as an agent for Atit for finding egg donors,” said Rathod. Neeru persuaded them not to opt for abortion but to give away the baby instead. She took Manjula to Atit, who found out that she was carrying a male child. “Atit told Manjula to sell her baby and asked her to come every month for check-ups. He paid her Rs.5,000 a month for food and medicines,” said Rathod.
Manjula gave birth to a male baby on September 30, 2011. On October 7, she was asked to go out with a nurse for an errand. When she returned, the baby was missing. Manjula said Atit gave her Rs.2 lakh but did not tell her to whom he gave the baby.
The police found that Atit had persuaded another woman, Kamini, to sell her child as well. He handed over the babies to the Vyas couple. Kamini, however, immediately regretted her action and demanded her baby back. She said she would kill herself otherwise. Atit allegedly told her that she would have to give him Rs.50,000, besides returning the money he had given her. Determined to have her child back, Kamini did so.
“Atit then called Vyas, who was on his way back to Porbandar, saying that they had made a mistake and had given them the wrong baby,” said Shukla. Atit, meanwhile, began searching for a baby to replace Kamini's. He found that one of the relatives of a nurse was an unwed mother who had given birth around the same time as Kamini. “He sent his nurse with the child of the unwed mother to the Vyas couple and returned Kamini's baby to her,” said Shukla.
According to Rathod, Atit acted as an agent, “as if selling babies was a business”. The police found that the Vyases had paid Atit Rs.8 lakh for the babies. “We were asked to pay Rs.1 lakh before surrogacy began, Rs.2 lakh after conception and Rs.1 lakh after delivery for each of the children,” said Dilip, who insisted that he had no idea the babies were being sold.
The police arrested Atit on February 19 and charged him under sections 372 (selling a minor), 373 (buying a minor), 418 (cheating), 201 (hiding evidence) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report also named Rajkumar, Neeru and Dilip Vyas as accused. “We presented enough prima facie evidence that linked Atit with selling the babies that he did could not get anticipatory bail,” said Shukla. However, Atit was granted bail on March 25 and the investigation has stalled.
Atit told INN that he had not done anything wrong morally. “This is a case of adoption and the only fault was that we did not do the necessary paperwork,” he said. “Many children are found in dumpsters or on the streets. What happens to them? Today, the child of an unwed mother and a child of a divorcee without support have found a good home.”
The police do not believe that Atit gave away the babies on humane grounds. “He took Rs.4 lakh for each child, but gave the mothers only Rs.2 lakh each. He pocketed the rest,” said Rathod.
“Under the law, the childless couple could have opted for adoption. Atit had no business getting involved in it,” said Dr Amar Jesani, editor of Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. “If this case is not trafficking but adoption, how can Atit make money from it? Adoption is not a business in India.”
Surprisingly, the Vyas couple did not insist on signing documents before opting for surrogacy. Under the law, a healthy woman can volunteer to carry a baby for another couple. The surrogate has to be paid for the procedure and the couple who commissions the surrogacy has to sign a contract to the effect. Once the documents are notarised, the commissioning couple becomes legal parents of the child. Surrogacy is deemed illegal if it is done in the absence of legal documents.
To cover his tracks, Atit gave a fake delivery certificate to Kamini, saying that she had given birth to twins in his nursing home. The children remain with the Vyases, as their biological mothers have not shown any inclination to take custody. Fortunately, the babies remain healthy. Said Shukla: “When we went to Porbandar, we saw that there was real affection between the mother and children. So we decided not to charge the mother and not to appeal for custody of the kids.”
The case, however, has made matters related to surrogacy murkier. The draft of the Artificial Reproduction Technologies (regulation) Bill that lays down precise rules on the matter has been ready since 2010. But it has not been tabled in Parliament. Currently, the only guidelines that exist on surrogacy are of the Indian Council of Medical Research. But they are not enforceable. “So, as things stand, there is a lot of ambiguity regarding surrogacy,” said Tarang Mahajan, a researcher with Sama Resource Group for Women and Health in Delhi.
As she says, doctors have been playing a central role in surrogacy. They find the surrogates and broker deals between parents and surrogates. Now, the case against Atit has brought to light the need for strict monitoring of the role of doctors. Said Mahajan: “Even though most doctors seem to have an altruistic aim, it is very important to monitor their roles in the procedure.”
