Allowed

Varsha Ketan Kabadi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Jan 2020WP/29/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking permission to terminate a pregnancy. Upon review of the expert committee's report indicating substantial fetal risk and an obstetric age of 20 weeks, the court permitted the termination at a government-recognized center.

What did the court decide?

Permission to terminate the pregnancy at a government-recognized center is allowed.

Varsha Ketan Kabadi and Another Vs the State of… — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

960.WP.29.2020.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

960 WRIT PETITION NO.29 OF 2020

¶4

VARSHA KETAN KABADI AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶5

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Khutwad Manoj R
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. A.V. Gondhalekar

¶6

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND

¶7

MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

¶8

DATE:03/01/2020

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

1. The petitioner seeks permission to terminate the pregnancy.

¶11

2. The petitioner was referred to the expert committee at

¶12

Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. The committee
examined the petitioner and submitted the report. The report reads thus:

¶13

“The committee has thoroughly examined Varsha w/o Ketan
Kabadi and her obstetric Sonography report. On obstetric ultra-
sonography dated 01.01.2020 at GMCH, Aurangabad. Following
findings are noted.

¶14

 a. Length of Pregnancy : Gestational Age of 20 weeks 0 days.

¶15

 b. Features likely to represent arthrogryposis and possibility of
fetal akinesia. Deformation syndrome.

¶16

 c. Single umbilical artery.

¶17

 d. Increased nuchal thickness with mild oedema of soft tissue
around the neck.

¶18

Taking into consideration the above findings there is
substantial risk to the fetus if born. Hence this Committee
recommends termination of pregnancy. Pregnancy can be

¶19

1/2

¶20

960.WP.29.2020.odt

¶21

terminated at Government recognized centre of choice of patient
with due risk to mother and the risk is explained to her and her
relatives.

¶22

3.The committee opined that there is substantial risk to the fetus if
born. The committee recommends termination of pregnancy. The risk
involved in termination of pregnancy is explained to the petitioner no. 1 and
her relatives.

¶23

4.In light of the report of the expert committee, the petitioner is
permitted to terminate the pregnancy at government recognized center. Writ
petition is disposed of. No. costs.

¶24

 ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶25

habeeb

¶26

2/2

Varsha Ketan Kabadi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha Ketan Kabadi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramprasad Patilba Dongre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahesh Gopalrao Undegaonkar and Another Vs Nirmal Krida and Samaj Prabodhan Trust and Others

M/S v a Gaikwad Construcion through Its Proprietor Vishal Ashok Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Maharashtra State Housing Co. Op Finance Corporation through Its Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atmaram Supdu Koli Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maruti Goroba Sarvade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others