Disposed

Akshata Ankur Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/4993/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a writ petition seeking medical termination of pregnancy. After reviewing a medical board report recommending termination, the court granted liberty to undergo the procedure. In subsequent hearings regarding a stillbirth, the court disposed of the petition without further orders.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at KEM Hospital, Mumbai.

Akshata Ankur Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Medical Negligence | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(15)-WP-4993-21.doc .

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4993 OF 2021

¶4

Akshata Ankur Gurav ..Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Shrivallabh Panchpor i/by Mr. Shantanu Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶6

Smt. Ashwini Purav, AGP for the Respondent – State. Husband of Petitioner – Mr. Ankush Gurav also present.

¶7

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : 22^nd SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard Mr. Panchpor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Purav, learned AGP for the respondent - State.

¶10

On 02.09.2021, we had passed the following order :-

¶11

“2. Petitioner seeks medical termination of her pregnancy which is stated to be in its 29^th week on the ground that fetus suffers from severe abnormalities.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on due consideration, we direct the Dean of Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals and Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai to constitute a medical board for examination of the petitioner.

¶13

Petitioner shall report before the medical board within 48 hours.

¶14

BGP. 1 o f 3

¶15

(15)-WP-4993-21.doc .

¶16

Medical board shall submit its report in sealed cover on or before the next date.

¶17

6. Stand over to 7^th September, 2021.”

¶18

Thereafter when the matter was heard on 07.09.2021, the following order came to be passed :-

¶19

“3. Today, when the matter is called upon, learned AGP has placed before us a report of the medical board dated 05.09.2021 which we have perused.

¶20

After careful examination and study of ultrasonography report, medical board has opined that the fetus suffers from serious neurological abnormalities details of which are mentioned in the report. In that view of the matter, medical board has recommended medical termination of pregnancy. However, it has expressed the view that since the gestation is beyond 29 weeks, there is possibility that the fetus may be born alive.

¶21

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that through inadvertence the name of the petitioner is wrongly mentioned and therefore, seeks leave to amend the cause-title of the writ petition.

¶22

6. Leave to amend is granted.

¶23

Let the amendment be carried out forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.

¶24

In view of the recommendation of the medical board, we grant liberty to the petitioner to undergo medical termination of pregnancy in the KEM Hospital, Mumbai.

¶25

BGP. 2 o f 3

¶26

(15)-WP-4993-21.doc .

¶27

Outcome of the procedure shall be informed to the Court on or before the next date.”

¶28

Today, when the matter is called upon, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions of husband of the petitioner has informed us that there was breech delivery. In other words, though medical termination of pregnancy was not carried out, the fetus resulted in birth of a still born baby.

¶29

In view of the aforesaid development, no further order is called for.

¶30

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

Digitally signed by BALAJI BALAJIGOVINDRAO GOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2021.09.22 18:11:57 +0530

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J

UJJAL BHUYAN, J

3 o f 3

BGP.

Akshata Ankur Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshata Ankur Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Jagdish Sakharam Parbalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Xyz Thr Hr Legal Guardian Santosh Vaijinath Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Public Health Dept. and Ors.

Vishal S/O. Gajendra Surwase and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Jubilant Industries Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home (State Excise) Dept and Ors.

Anil Ramchandra Chandak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S. Molecular Pathlabs LLP Thr. Partner Dr. Dishita Budhalani Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Commissioner of Health Services