Days after losing their son following an emergency Caesarean section at Pune Adventist Hospital, the couple says they are still struggling to understand what happened inside the operation theatre and why the information they received before and after the surgery appears to be contradictory.

Speaking from her hospital bed, Sara fought back tears as she recounted the sequence of events that led to the loss of her baby. "I only want justice for my son," she said.

According to Sara, her pregnancy had progressed normally under the care of consultant gynaecologist Dr. Malika Gaikwad. On May 24, however, she noticed a reduction in foetal movement. Concerned, she contacted the hospital seeking medical advice. She was instructed to go to the hospital immediately. Upon arrival, doctors reportedly conducted a Non-Stress Test (NST), a standard procedure used to assess foetal well-being by monitoring heart rate and movement. What followed, according to the family, set in motion a chain of events that continues to raise troubling questions.

Sara alleges that hospital staff informed her that the baby's heartbeat was fluctuating between 113 and 116 beats per minute. While she was also told that the amniotic fluid level had reduced, she claims that the baby's heartbeat was still being detected and monitored.

"Dr Gaikwad looked concerned and said the baby's movement and heartbeat were dropping. We were told that an emergency C-section was the safest option," Sara recalled.

The questions that haunt them today stem from what they were allegedly told after the surgery. According to Sara and her husband, doctors later informed the family that the baby had already died more than 24 hours before admission to the hospital.

For the grieving parents, that statement contradicts everything they say they were told before the operation.

"If our baby had already died before we reached the hospital, then whose heartbeat was displayed on the monitor?" asks Niket Sonar.

That single question now lies at the heart of the family's demand for answers.

Niket says he personally saw the monitor displaying a foetal heart rate of approximately 113 beats per minute before the surgery. Based on that information, the family consented to the emergency procedure, believing there was still a chance to save their child.

"The hospital says our baby had died over 24 hours earlier," Niket said. "If that is true, on what basis were we informed of a heartbeat before the operation? What exactly was being recorded?"

"Why weren't we given complete and accurate information before the operation?" Niket asks. "Why were we told one thing before surgery and another afterward?"

Sara's anguish extends beyond the loss itself. She says she never got an opportunity to see her child. "I carried him for 35 weeks," she said. "I never even got to hold him or say goodbye."

According to the family, neither senior hospital management nor the treating doctor met them later to provide a detailed explanation of the events leading up to the baby's death.

Among the key issues the family wants addressed are whether the hospital has initiated an internal inquiry, whether any findings have been reached, and whether an independent investigation will be conducted into the actions and decisions of the medical team involved.

They are also seeking assurances that corrective measures will be implemented to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

"Every family deserves transparency," Niket said. "If mistakes were made, they should be acknowledged and investigated. If protocols failed, they should be corrected."

The case has gained further significance due to a video reportedly recorded in the presence of police officers after the incident. The family claims the recording captures Dr Gaikwad apologising and admitting that she relied on the machine's reading without independently verifying it. According to the family, she also acknowledged that the heartbeat and pulse displayed on the monitor belonged to the mother rather than the child, and that the machine had malfunctioned.

Dr Gaikwad was recorded on camera responding to questions from Niket, during which she appeared to acknowledge that she had informed the family that the child's heartbeat was below 120 BPM and that the child was healthy. She then reportedly admitted that she had mistakenly interpreted the mother's heartbeat as the child's.

Dr Gaikwad also stated that the family was free to lodge a complaint with any authority if they believed any wrongdoing had occurred.

The family further alleges that when police sought supporting sonography records and documentation, Dr Gaikwad admitted there were no records. These allegations have not been independently verified.

Repeated attempts to obtain Dr Gaikwad's response were unsuccessful at the time of going to press. Pune Adventist Hospital had also not issued a detailed public statement addressing the family's specific allegations.

For Sara and Niket Sonar, the grief is overwhelming as they were preparing to welcome their first child. Yet amid that grief, they say they are determined to pursue answers not only for their son, but to ensure that no other family experiences the same pain.

Also Read : I am to be someone's hope, says Sonu Sood