Pregnancy and Medical Treatment: Can a Woman Be Denied Care if She's One Month Pregnant?

Hi, can a woman be rejected for medical treatment if she is one month pregnant?

My friend is waiting for her medical test at SBI. She passed the test and interview. Now she is 1 month pregnant. Please help...

Medical Examinations and Pregnancy

Medical examinations are conducted solely to detect any diseases that may render you unfit for the job; however, pregnancy is not a valid reason to deem you unfit.

Regards,
Rajeev Kumar
Bangalore

Only some private companies reject candidates if they are pregnant before recruitment just to evade monetary liabilities. I don't think SBI will reject an applicant on account of pregnancy.

Regards,
Pon

Your friend hasn't been rejected. The reason can be interpreted in various ways. I support the opinions provided above by our eligible members. Additionally, by her 4th month, she should have completed 80 calendar days of work within the last 12 months. Therefore, she would be eligible for maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act.

Thank you.

Regards

Any reputable organization will not reject. Since it is SBI, your friend can rest assured that she will not be rejected. As my friend has mentioned, pregnancy is not a disease. So, congratulate her and give her strength and confidence.

Regards,
T. Chandran

No, legally speaking, a lady cannot be rejected for being pregnant. It amounts to discrimination based on sex.

Regards

Dear Aami, Greetings. Already, you have received answers—can't reject a lady on the grounds that she is pregnant. Maternity benefits can be denied or disallowed. Please take up the matter with the concerned SBI officials.

Instead of worrying about the medical results, concentrate on motherhood to have a nice, intelligent baby.

With best wishes,

Regards, Ramgopal K. S.

One of my friends informed me that there is no provision in the service rules of SBI to reject someone on the grounds of pregnancy. As many of my colleagues have mentioned, pregnancy is not a disease, so there is no need to worry.

Thank you.

Motherhood and Employment in Public Sector

Motherhood is not a medical disqualification for a job, especially in a public sector undertaking like SBI, which is considered a model employer. As it is only one month since she became pregnant, she can very well join duty subject to medical advice. All the best.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai

Yes, it's correct that she cannot be rejected on the grounds of pregnancy. However, maternity leave cannot be taken for granted since she will be on probation for a certain period, depending on the grade she is joining—clerk, PO, or management trainee. Additionally, there is no paid leave during probation.

Companies do check up on shortlisted candidates to see if they suffer from any severe diseases. In routine, these tests do not confirm pregnancy because that is a completely different test. Mrs. Das has been cleared, and the company is obligated to provide maternity benefits.

Pregnancy issues will not affect the selection process in esteemed organizations like SBI. Please tell your friend to be happy.

Regards,
Aniruddha Jadhav A.M Legal, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

No, pregnancy is not a disease, and it is not a permanent condition. Therefore, rejection is not a question.

Regards,

Pregnancy is not a medical condition leading to rejection. This will make your friend 'temporarily' ineligible. She will be given sufficient time to join after delivery, subject to medical fitness at that time.

Regards,
Satjit Singh

Assuming that the ground for the rejection of a candidate is solely pregnancy, more so by a model employer like a public sector bank, the woman candidate, in my view, has a case on hand from the point of view of the law. In fact, as one member has rightly said, a pregnant woman has the protection of the law in the form of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, which incorporates various provisions that protect the rights of a woman during her employment. I need not elaborate on it as it is well known, and the said member has repeated it in this discussion for ready reference.

Furthermore, where a wily employer considers pregnancy as a medically unfit condition and wants to terminate her services, Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act puts an embargo on such termination. Thus, the whole spirit of the Act is to protect the employment of women but not to expose them to any risk of losing their job on grounds of pregnancy. It being so, the employer's action of rejection will be called into question as violative of Article 14 of the constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, and Articles 20 and 21, which guarantee the right to life and to earn a livelihood. A woman need not resign to her fate in such cases.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
Mumbai

No, she shouldn't be rejected for medical treatment because it's a matter of any woman's life. If the medical team makes a wrong diagnosis or does not provide proper treatment, she may face risks in carrying out a safe pregnancy, ultimately resulting in miscarriage or other dangerous issues.

Regards,
Hasan
Sr. Executive - HR
Giant Group (www.giantbd.com)

The Dilemma of Hiring Pregnant Women

She has a case to fight, and she does not have a case to fight. It depends on the individual circumstances. She can be rejected very easily, and even SBI can recover the amount of Rs. 100,000 from her; everything is possible using the loopholes in the Indian legal system.

I am not here to argue whether pregnant women should apply or not.

Questions for HR Professionals

You are the employer/HR, and for your company, a position X is lying vacant as the person working in that position has resigned. You need to fill position X. As the company is already operating on tight schedules, it is not possible to share the workload of position X with other members. During the interview, as an HR, your job profile demands that you recruit a candidate who will be loyal and hardworking in the long run. This is what you are being paid for, and management will expect the same from you. Now, during the selection process, you will usually select five candidates and need to finalize one for position X. In that, you find and offer one woman the job with the condition that she is found medically fit.

So, when you come to know during the medical checkup that she is pregnant, you have to really think whether it is worth recruiting her when you know in the coming months she needs to take leave for delivery, etc. Also, traditionally, companies favor giving such benefits to long-serving loyal employees and not to any employee who joined two months ago and becomes pregnant in the third month.

Here it is not a question of giving maternity benefits. The question is why would anyone knowingly harm their own interests? Because in the future, when the lady goes on medical leave, she will get monetary benefits, and the company needs to engage another person temporarily so that the work can be done. Most companies either split the work among other colleagues, increasing their frustration as they need to stay late in the office because this lady went on maternity leave. After all, we all are humans, and we have emotions and a life too.

Also, in the future, after delivery, she may have personal problems with no one to take care of the baby, further health issues, and may choose to remain a housewife as per her family circumstances. In such cases, the company loses a significant amount of money and gains nothing.

So, any HR person would choose not to recruit such persons in their company. There are many legal ways in which the company, if they wish, can very sweetly pressure the person to resign in one month by making her work long hours. Mind it, I know SBI now, don’t think SBI is some government organization; I have seen the local SBI staff near my office working till late evening at 8:00 pm. So the same will be applicable to this lady too.

A Call to HR Professionals

To all ladies, what is your opinion on this? If you know you are pregnant, will you be ready to join a job and work as other employees do? You have to think from an HR point of view, so I would request an answer from LADIES who are HR, WORKING IN HR, and have DONE RECRUITMENT.

If you find yourself in such a situation, what will be your decision? Will you apply to companies just to take maternity benefits, knowing you are pregnant, or choose to sit at home and after delivery join a job after confirming that your child will be looked after well during the day? Because this is where pregnant mothers leave jobs; after delivery, in-laws don’t care, then the mother has to leave the job, and the company loses lots of money and time in this. Being corporate, we have seen so many cases where employees working in the company for more than 5 years are literally terminated just because they had an accident or were sick for 1-2 months and could not come to work. Is this greater than not allowing a pregnant woman to join?

I would only request replies from sensible HR people who know what the company works for and what decisions are to be taken, and not from some lawyer who may just merely quote a law because we need to be practical, and practicality is, in India, no law is made for practical scenarios. If you strictly follow any law, you can’t do anything.

This forum is open to all, and everyone can voice their opinions/views, especially when a debate and discussion are deliberately invited. Sensibility is a subjective matter. What appears sensible to one may not appeal to others. Thus, no one needs to assume the role of a self-styled judge in this regard. The acceptance of an issue as sensible or not does not depend upon an individual employer's whims and fancies but on how society perceives it. It is the laws that reflect the perceptions and will of society, and thus their spirit, especially in the case of welfare legislation, needs to be understood with the sensitivity they deserve. The lack of social sensitivity, ignorance of welfare aspects of social legislation like labor laws, and tinkering with them with disregard by management often breed distrust between management and employees, leading to a souring of industrial relations as witnessed of late.

The Issue of Selecting a Pregnant Woman

Now the issue is not why an employer should select a pregnant woman. If an employer does not want to select a pregnant woman for various reasons, he can very well cite a hundred reasons and may choose not to recruit her. There ends the matter. The issue sought to be posed is whether an employer can reject a woman who is one month pregnant solely on the grounds of pregnancy but for which she would have been employed. The issue thus acquires a moral and legal dimension, especially when the woman is only one month pregnant and is not going to go away the next day itself. It attracted a debate because of this moral and legal dimension. Otherwise, there is nothing in the issue to debate. Many members have discussed the issue from this perspective. Regrettably, this aspect has been sorely missed by some, and the issue is sought to be debated on the grounds of the employer's convenience.

Employer's Schedule and Employee Rights

What if the employer is running on a tight schedule, and a woman proceeds on maternity leave? Will he terminate her since she is upsetting his schedule? What if a woman holding a critical role suddenly resigns? Will he stop her or harass her for upsetting his schedule? Is this HR with sensitivity?

Thanks to the laws for the protection of employees, without which they would have been left to fend for themselves. Thanks also to some organizations, to great relief, who are sensitive to women's issues and protect their employment through various plans.

Regards,
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai

No, however, keeping in view her physical condition/medical prescription, the offer can be put on hold.

Regards,
Chaman

You want to discuss the practicality of the subject, let's come to it. I will not quote any law nor talk about any, just one question: all the scenarios you cited may happen with a lady even after joining the company and working there for years. What should they do at that time? Probably, women should not work in the first place? Is it so?

Motherhood and Maternity Benefits

Motherhood is a natural process. It is a blessing for the family who has it. More than the legal aspect, it has emotional value attached to it. Maternity benefits should not be seen as a burden on the company finances. When a baby is born, not only the mother but the whole family goes through many phases of mental and physical changes. For example, they wake up with the child at night if he wishes not to sleep; they begin to understand and distinguish between the little one's different weepings, or many things. At times, many co-workers have to suffer and adjust their time so that their colleague may take care of her baby. This is what is called social responsibility, and everyone should contribute to it on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is unfortunate that many companies do terminate many ladies at such a crucial phase of her life. But this is the difference between a good and a bad company.

Not everything can be decided on practicalities, my friend. Sometimes we have to accept things the way they are. Hope you have your reply.

Regards

The pregnant candidate can be considered temporarily unfit and allowed to join after three months following her actual delivery.

Hi, if someone is 5-6 months pregnant at the time of an interview for a government insurance company, can she be rejected for the same reason?

Not at all. No person or company has the right to reject a pregnant woman.

Dear Keshav, thanks for bringing this discussion alive. Mr. Saikumar's contributions are praiseworthy. However, this matter has not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. I hope the person posting this query would respond.

In my opinion, I find that only one member has given a very correct, albeit brief, line of action that a public sector organization would most likely pursue. As correctly observed by others, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 will not apply here, as the concerned person is not an employee as yet.

Warm regards.

In our organization, in cases of pregnancy, candidates are temporarily deemed unfit and asked to report again for a medical check-up four weeks after delivery. Therefore, candidates are not disqualified.

Perfectly right. In companies where comprehensive medical examinations are conducted, involving urine, blood, and other tests before appointment, there are guidelines to deal with such cases. Also, before an x-ray is taken, a pregnant woman is required to disclose relevant information. When the tests reveal pregnancy, a female candidate is declared temporarily unfit. She is directed to undergo a second medical examination after four weeks of delivery. If she is otherwise found fit during this examination, she is offered employment.

Warm regards.

First, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Ms. (Cite Contribution), who connected me through this discussion via Twitter, and I got a chance to share my thoughts on this case. Second, to the one who responded on Twitter with his question about CONDITIONS (responded to my reply to her).

Here I go...

Period of Pregnancy and Safety Concerns

The period of pregnancy and safety concerns, along with other conditions of pregnancy, are basic things that must not be forgotten while considering or discussing this case. I believe that pregnancy should not be the criterion for rejecting a candidate, and it would not be ethical either. However, without considering the conditions and facts, we must not decide whether the candidate should be rejected or accepted.

Understanding the Reality of the Case

My first question: How will you uncover the reality of this case and the real reasons for rejecting the candidature of a pregnant woman, as queried by Mr. Keshav?

I agree that there is no law that prohibits rejecting the candidature or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate. Nor is there any rule or law specified in India that compels us to hire a woman candidate by ignoring the facts of pregnancy.

Reasons for Rejection

How can one say that only pregnancy can be the reason for rejecting a woman candidate? This is my other question to you all. And, if we accept that the candidature of a pregnant woman has been rejected, we must not forget the following before proceeding further or discussing it: the period of pregnancy, present health status, safety concerns, mental status, work and work atmosphere, and also the break or leave required by the woman in the future. These are the basic points that a recruiter and interviewer have to consider before employing her. Moreover, it would not be good to say "accepting or rejecting her candidate" but rather "to hire or offer a job/employment or not with reasoning pregnancy."

Questions to Recruiters

- Are you ready to ignore these aforesaid conditions and facts of pregnancy while considering her candidature?
- Will you hire a pregnant woman candidate for a few months, knowing that she will be on leave for the period required by her (allowed maternity leaves as per rules/law) and also where there is no guarantee of her rejoining after the completion of the granted leave period?
- Are you the one who would never expect or look for consistency in her job regarding past and future employment?

I respect the concern raised by Mr. Keshav and the consent on it by others, but we must not forget the facts regarding the pregnancy of a candidate that really matter in decision-making or hiring a candidate. We are also responsible for the health (both physical and mental stress and conditions) and social security of our employees.

Legal Considerations

Regarding response #21 by Mr. SaiKumar, Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 is to protect the employment of a woman but not to expose her to any risk of losing her job on grounds of pregnancy. However, here we are discussing hiring or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate who is still not employed. This condition applies to present employees, not future employees. So, there is no violation of Article 14, which is well clarified by Mr. Keshav himself in response #22. Thanks, Mr. Keshav!

Regarding the response by Mr. Kraviravi, your responses are appreciable, but there is nothing like it depends on people to people; rather, it depends on the facts and the real conditions of pregnancy of a candidate and employment.

And requests to all, do not take it as a debate because it is a case that everyone from the HR domain needs to understand.

Hope I have clarified myself regarding every query and case.

Lastly, to the one who asked me about the 'CONDITIONS' that I tweeted today in response to Ms. (Cite Contribution)'s tweet on this case, I hope you'll find your answers in my response.

Regards.

I appreciate the inputs on this, which can be implemented in the private sector, which is much more lenient and aims at the optimum exploitation of human resources available. However, in Government and PSUs, the standards of medical examination are stringent, well-laid-out, and specific. The examination is not done by a doctor but by a Medical Board comprising several specialists. This is necessary for obvious reasons, as well as for the benefit of the pension to the employee, his surviving wife, or surviving children until the age of majority. Also, the age of a candidate is ascertained and recorded by the Board in its report. Thus, there is no question of any personal opinion, as rules are very specific. I can vouch for it, having faced the Medical Board of UPSC and having been a senior manager in the Personnel/HR department of a Navratna PSU.

The most stringent rules exist for the Defence Forces, followed by government airlines and railways, para-military services like BSF, Coast Guard, CRPF, CISF, etc., and technical services in Gr A & B like IPS, IFS (Forest), IRTS, Customs, etc., followed by the technical services in PSUs. There are thick manuals, rules, and policies. Since the President of India is the Head of Government, the rules after his approvals are published (notified) in the Gazette of India. The President, being the "owner" of all the PSUs, his directives are followed as rules in the PSUs.

Before the candidate appears for the Medical Board, he may have to fill up a comprehensive medical declaration, which has a number of questions like:

- Have you ever been examined by a Medical Board before?
- If "yes," then for which service and...
- When and where was the Medical...
- What was the result in case you were communicated...
- Have you undergone surgery before...
- Are you suffering from...
- Do any of your family members, including your parents, suffer from...

Every year, these are published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) at various points in time.

Pregnant Candidates and Medical Examination

Coming to the question of a pregnant candidate appearing for a medical examination, the relevant portion of Annexure III of the Standards of Medical Examination in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated (the date of notification) is quoted below:

"9. A woman candidate who, as a result of tests, is found to be pregnant of 12 weeks standing or over, should be declared temporarily unfit until the confinement is over. She should be re-examined for a fitness certificate six weeks after the date of confinement, subject to the production of a medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner."

Similar sets of rules exist for Government Departments, Government Institutions like RBI, and other financial organizations and banks. I hope the above is clear. Kindly note that in the case of Government and PSU, there is no justification in giving one's heartfelt emotions or opinions, as there are clearly spelled-out rules, which are binding. I hope the above will be helpful to the person who posted this query as well as all members in learning and discovering the methodology related to a comprehensive medical examination. An extract of the Gazette notification pertaining to medical examination is attached herewith. One can appreciate how everything, including standard and routine procedures like taking blood pressure, is elaborated in great detail.

Warm regards.

Pregnancy and Medical Fitness for Employment

No woman can be rejected in medical evaluations if she is found to be pregnant. However, as per guidelines, she may be declared temporarily unfit (depending on fundamental/supplementary rules) to join duties. Later on, she can join.

Regards,
Chaman Jaggi

If she has not informed HR during the interview, then it's more of a trust issue. Pregnancy is a natural biological process undergone by the female of our human species. It's more important than a job offer, frankly. Legally, she cannot be rejected, but on work grounds, she can be. The job is created for someone who can come in now and fill it up. If, for some reason, the candidate is not able to fulfill that condition physically (in the absence of a work-from-home model as this is a bank) right away, the opportunity should be passed to a more available candidate, who may be someone who has just delivered a baby and is back to take up work responsibilities. So, neither the company is at fault nor the candidate if they have apprised of their condition beforehand. They can be offered a position post their delivery.

Right to Motherhood and Employment

The right to motherhood is every woman's right and dream unless the organization clearly states that they need unmarried women only. In such cases, any woman failing to disclose her marital status at the time of application, interview, or entry, and carrying a pregnancy during the interview or application process while hiding it, can be rejected. This may be considered a case of making false disclosures or furnishing false information. However, if there is no such stipulation or restriction for being a married candidate, there cannot be any bar on joining as a pregnant woman. A married woman is expected to carry a pregnancy.

Case Study: Army Medical Corps

I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married woman qualified in the interview for joining the Army Medical Corps as a doctor. On the day of reporting or joining, she was carrying a one-month-old baby, which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the grounds of pregnancy. She went to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but also sent a message across to all, stating that motherhood is the right of every woman. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed, but no woman can be deprived of a job on this ground. It would rather be a discriminatory HR practice.

Jai Hind

Pregnancy cannot be the reason for rejection on medical grounds during the initial appointment for the case under discussion. However, subsequent maternity benefits will be governed by the applicable rules in place.