Harshad S/O Pramod Topre (Husband Of Gayatri Harshad Topre) v. Govt. Medical College And Hospital Nagpur Thr. Its President/Dean And 11 Others

2025:BHC-NAG:323-DB 1 3.wp.841.22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 841/2022 Harshad s/o. Pramod Topre Vs.

Government Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur and Ors. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. K. R. Trivedi, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 12/State. Ms S. S. Jachak, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr. G. S. Bhajbhuje, Advocate h/f. Mr. S. M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 5, 7 to 9.

Ms Shwini Ahalye, Advocate for Respondent No.10. Mr. V. P. Panpalia, Advocate for Respondent No.11. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 13/01/2025.

.

We have heard Mr. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner for some time.

2.

By this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to conduct second D.N.A. test with the help of Police Station Dhantoli.

3.

The petitioner has prayed for directions to conduct D.N.A. test of wife of the petitioner and baby boy of the petitioner, which according to him, is kept with respondent No.2. Further prayer is made for appointment of the High Power Committee consisting of expert Doctors to investigate the conduct of the respondent - Hospital and that of respondent Nos.3 to 10 and to take action against the respondent - Hospital and the Doctors.

4.

Our attention is invited not only to the earlier orders but also to the D.N.A. test reflected at page 104 and 107.

2 3.wp.841.22 5.

We fail to understand as to the reason for which the petitioner is again and again approaching before this Court seeking D.N.A. test.

6.

As regards the negligence or the failure to discharge the duty on the part of respondent - Hospital or the Doctor is concerned, in our opinion, the petitioner has an appropriate remedy before the Competent Authority/Forum.

7.

Once, in earlier round of the litigation, the Court has taken note of the fact about the D.N.A. test being already carried out.

8.

In view of availability of the alternate remedy, we see no reason to cause interference in the matter, the petition stands dismissed accordingly.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule