State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Narendra Vithoba Patil vs Panandikar General Hospital Datta ... on 2 March, 2026
RP-69-2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
REVISION PETITION NO.RP/69/2025
(Arising out of the order dated 12/02/2025 passed by the Ld.District Consumer
Commission Thane in consumer complaint no.CC/532/2024)
Mr.Narendra Vithoba Patil
R/at Smitvarsha Bunglow, Shivaji Nagar
Chendhare, Alibag ....... Revision Petitioner /
District Raigad 402 201 Org.complainant
Versus
1.Panandikar General Hospital
(Datta Medicare & Finance Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.)
Thakkar House, Opp.Hotel Abhiruchi
Uthalsar, Thane 400 601
2.Dr.Datta Panandikar
Panandikar General Hospital
(Datta Medicare & Finance Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.)
Thakkar House, Opp.Hotel Abhiruchi
Uthalsar, Thane 400 601
3.Jupiter Hospital
(A unit of Jupiter Lifeline Hospitals Ltd.) .........Respondents/org.OPs
Eastern Express Highway, Service Road
Thane (West) 400 606
4.Dr.Ashutosh Ajgaonkar
(A unit of Jupiter Lifeline Hospitals Ltd.)
Eastern Express Highway, Service Road
Thane (West) 400 606
5.Dr.Vinita Mahajan
Shraddha Diagnostics
101, Juliana Heritage Building
Castle Mill Circle, Near Swagat Hotel
Above Maratha Lunch Home,
Behind Axis Bank, Next to Aadhar Path Pedhi
Uthalsar, Thane 400 601
1
RP-69-2025
BEFORE: Justice S.P.Tavade - President
Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
PRESENT: Advocate Mohammad Shine for the revision petitioner
ORAL ORDER
(Dt.02/03/2026)
Per Hon'ble Vijay C.Premchandani - Member
1. The present revision petitioner has filed the revision petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12/02/2025 passed by the Ld.District Consumer Commission Thane in consumer complaint no.CC/532/2024, thereby refusing to issue notice to the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 on the ground that there appears no prima facie negligence of respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 or any deficiency in service and only issued notice to the respondent nos.1 & 2. Hence, the present revision petitioner has aggrieved with the said order and filed the present revision petition.
Facts of the case:-
2. It is contended in the revision petition that on 14/07/2022, for the first time his daughter Varsha Narendra Patil (hereinafter referred as "Varsha") visited the Respondent No.2 at the Respondent No.1. On 04/08/2022, details about Varsha's previous 3 preterm abortions and medical records were shown to the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 had advised Varsha to undergo diagnostic tests. On 16/08/2022, at Suburban Diagnostics, Varsha's USG Nuchal scan, Double Marker Test and routine Blood investigations were done and all reports were found normal. On 22/08/2022, the Respondent No.2 had performed Cervical Encircalage (OS tightening) in view of Varsha's Bad Obsteric history at the Respondent No.1. On 29/09/2022, Varsha visited the Respondent No.1 for regular checkup. On 06/10/2022, the Fetal Anomaly USG scan of Varsha was conducted at Suburban Diagnostic. The scan reports mentioned that using all Fetal Biometry the Gestational age by USG was 20 2 RP-69-2025 weeks 2 days and No Obvious Congenital Anomaly was seen at this stage. On 09/10/2022, at around 8:30 pm Varsha reached the Respondent No.1 with complaint of leaking per vaginum (PV leak). Dr Pratiksha Pawar MBBS DGO, Assistant Consultant attended to her. Dr Pratiksha Pawar did Varsha's Sonography at Respondent No.1's sonograhpy facility, checked her vitals and admitted Varsha for observation. Just 2 hours after the hospital admission Varsha suddenly lost almost all amniotic fluid at 11.12pm, but still no treatment was given to her. On 10/10/2022, Varsha's Gynaecologist i.e. the Respondent No.2 checked her for first time at around 8:30 pm, i.e. almost 24 hours after hospital admission, and did her sonography at the Respondent No.1's sonography facility. The Respondent No.2 informed the fetus to be alive with low amniotic fluid and suggested doing ultrasound sonography next day for exact amniotic fluid index to decide on continuation or termination of pregnancy. On 11/10/2022, from 7:30am onwards Varsha started shivering without fever which was followed by vomiting 4 to 5 times and later on fever spike along with pulse rate 108 bpm. For this the Respondent No.1's nurse administered 2 injections (one through IV and one directly) to Varsha as instructed to her by the Respondent No.2 over phone call as no doctor was available at hospital. In addition, the nurse mentioned reason for vomiting as side effects of the medicine. The Respondent No.1's nurse informed the Petitioner to conduct the blood tests at Tamhane Pathalogy Lab and for taking appointment for USG scan at Shraddha diagnostic located behind Panandikar hospital building. Accordingly, blood sample was collected for testing by Tamhane Pathalogy Lab at around 9.30 am and the reports generated at 11:00am in respect thereof which showed severe infection to patient due to raised infection markers. Even after these signs of infection at 7:30 am, the Respondent No.2 came to the hospital after 2 hours at 9:30am and insisted on checking Varsha before the USG scan. He checked Varsha for 30 mins and still mentioned the fetus to be alive and advised to first give breakfast to Varsha and then go for USG scan, thus delaying USG scan, which was scheduled at 3 RP-69-2025 10.00 am to 11.00 am. Despite the lift of the Respondent No.1's hospital building not working, still the Respondent No.2, with 27 years of clinical experience, asked Varsha to walk 2 floors without provision of stretcher citing necessity of USG scan. After returning from USG scan at around 12 pm, Varsha collapsed totally due to physical exertion of climbing 2 floors. The USG scan reports issued by the Respondent No.5 clearly mentioned Intrauterine demise (IUFD) i.e. INTRA UTERINE FETAL DEMISE and Liquor (i.e. amniotic fluid) - NIL.
Later at around 1:15pm the Respondent No.2 instructed to transfer Varsha to Respondent No.3 having better facilities citing Varsha's vitals to be extremely critical (extremely low BP70/50 mmHg and high pulse rate-160bpm) making it difficult to abort her child at his hospital. Varsha was transferred to the Respondent No.3. Although Varsha had a Mediclaim insurance Policy issued by The New IndiaAssurance Co. Ltd. bearing No 92000034220400000001, cash less facility was not approved. Hence the admission charges of Rs. 79.625/- was paid to the Respondent No.3 on 11/10/2022 by the husband of Varsha. At around 1:50pm her foetus (female) was delivered in casualty [dead, no crying and colour changed (+) by Respondent No.4 at 3:26pm and then shifted to the operation theatre for placenta removal. On 12/10/2022, at 10:45am Varsha was declared dead Vartak Nagar police station was informed regarding Varsha's death by the Respondent No.3 and three police officers arrived at the hospital. As the Respondent No.3 was reluctant to give the cause of death, the police officials instructed to conduct the Varsha's postmortem at Thane Civil hospital. On 03/06/2024, final Cause of Death Certificate dated 03/06/2024 issued by the Thane Civil Hospital clearly states the cause of death as death due to Acute Myocarditis with Septicemia in Pregnancy. On 22/05/2024, Committee of six doctors submitted their report clearly stating that Type -3 Delay has been caused in the case of Varsha's maternal death. On 14/10/2024, Consumer Complaint being Complaint Case No. CC/532/2024 filed before the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 4 RP-69-2025 Thane. On 12/02/2025, the Hon'ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane refused to issue notice against the Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on the ground that there appears to be no prima facie negligence of Respondent No. 3,4 and 5 or any deficiency in service and only issued notice against Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 28/07/2025, Certified copy of order dated 12/02/2025 made available to the Petitioner and on 10/09/2025, present Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order of the Ld.District Consumer Commission Thane passed below Exhibit-1 for non-issuance of the notice to the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 and prayed that the notice may be issued to the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5.
3. Heard learned Advocate Mohammad Shine for the revision petitioner. We have gone through the grounds mentioned in the present revision petition. It reveals from the facts of the case that the present revision petitioner had filed the complaint before the Committee of the six doctors, wherein the report has been placed on record. It reveals that there is a role of respondent nos.3, 4 & 5. The said fact is supposed to be proved by the complainant. The Municipal Corporation, Thane has filed a report as on 08/01/2024, which also carried the details of the doctors as well as the events occurred while treating the patient. The said facts are supposed to be proved by way of leading the evidence. The Ld.District Consumer Commission without giving opportunity to lead the evidence to the complainant has declared below Exhibit-1 that there is no case made out against the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 pertaining to the medical negligence, which is improper. Therefore, in our view the said order is required to be set aside and fair opportunity is to be given to both the parties. Hence, in view of the above mentioned facts, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Revision petition is allowed.
2. The impugned order dated 12/02/2025 below Exhibit-1 pertaining to non-issuance of notice to respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 is set aside and modifying the same, we issue notice to the respondent nos.3, 4 & 5 for 5 RP-69-2025 filing their written statement within prescribed time including respondent nos.1 & 2.
3. The Ld.District Consumer Commission is directed to decide the consumer complaint as per the provisions of law.
4. No order as to costs.
5. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
[Justice S.P. Tavade] President [Vijay C. Premchandani] Member MS 6