Three fires at Pune’s Aundh District Hospital in about 18 months have exposed a wider fire-safety and maintenance crisis inside an ageing public healthcare facility that treats hundreds of patients every day. The incidents occurred near the special newborn care unit and in an intensive-care backup unit, while the hospital reportedly has not undergone a fire-safety audit since 2021.
The hospital, located in Sangvi, serves patients from across the region, including low-income residents who depend on government healthcare. According to a report by Civic Mirror – Pune, more than 200 patients are admitted across its departments and the hospital handles an outpatient load of about 300 patients a day. Its departments include gynaecology, maternity, male wards, intensive care, neonatal intensive care and paediatrics.
The immediate concern is not simply that fires occurred, but that they occurred in areas where patients may be unable to evacuate independently. Two incidents were reported near the special newborn care unit, where infants receive treatment in incubators. A third occurred in the backup unit of the old intensive-care department. The hospital’s layout, ageing electrical systems, limited usable space and dependence on lifts make any emergency more difficult to manage than an ordinary building evacuation.
The first reported incident occurred on 17 November 2024 in a storeroom beside the special newborn care unit. Hospital staff moved newborns to a safer location after the fire. On 16 April 2026, a wall-mounted fan in the same area reportedly overheated and caused a short circuit. Fifteen newborns were receiving treatment in the unit at the time. A further short-circuit incident was reported on 18 June 2026 in the backup unit of the old intensive-care department.
No major loss of life was reported in the three incidents, according to the supplied report. That outcome depended on the response of hospital employees and the timely movement of patients during the April incident. The sequence nevertheless raises a basic governance question: whether a public hospital’s safety arrangements are being managed as a continuous operational responsibility or addressed only after an incident occurs.
Civic Mirror – Pune reported that the hospital has not had a fire-safety audit after 2021, despite the report’s assertion that audits are required every six months. The report also said that several fire extinguishers had expired and questioned the condition of the alarm, hydrant and sprinkler systems, emergency exits, fire doors, emergency lighting, electrical installations, fire pumps, water supply and medical-gas safety arrangements. It further raised concerns about staff training and the conduct of fire drills.
These are not isolated equipment questions. In a hospital, fire safety is linked to the building’s design, electrical maintenance, oxygen and medical-gas systems, patient mobility, staffing and emergency decision-making. A fire door that cannot close, an exit blocked by stored material or a lift that is unavailable can turn a manageable incident into a mass-casualty emergency. Patients in intensive care, newborn units and other critical departments cannot be treated as ordinary occupants who can leave a building without assistance.
The hospital’s physical condition adds another layer of risk. The main building is described in the report as more than 50 years old, while the district surgeon put its age at 62 years. The difference in the figures does not alter the central point: the facility is an ageing public building operating under contemporary healthcare demands. Older buildings can continue to serve the public, but only when electrical systems, fire protection, circulation routes, water infrastructure and structural maintenance are regularly assessed and upgraded.
The report also described damaged toilets, inadequate water supply, broken doors, insufficient cleanliness and the use of some toilets for storing scrap. Waste and discarded hospital material were reportedly accumulated on the terrace, including old iron beds, mattresses, plastic chairs and medical scrap. If accurate, such storage creates both a hygiene concern and an additional fire load. The condition of service spaces is therefore part of the safety story, rather than a separate housekeeping issue.
The hospital’s capacity constraints further complicate emergency planning. The facility is described as a 300-bed hospital, but only two floors are currently available for hospital operations because the third floor has been given to the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences in Nashik. This leaves departments competing for limited space while the hospital continues to handle a substantial outpatient and inpatient load.
The report says the hospital has three lifts, of which one is about 15 years old and requires replacement. With only two lifts currently operating, movement becomes more difficult during busy periods. For patients who need a stretcher, oxygen support or close medical supervision, a lift failure is not a minor inconvenience. It can delay treatment, complicate transfers between departments and place additional physical demands on relatives and staff.
The institutional response, as reported, is focused on completing specific works before seeking a fresh fire-safety assessment. Dr Ambadas Devmane, district surgeon at Aundh District Hospital, said the existing firefighting system was capable. He said a six-metre road would be created at the rear of the hospital to allow fire engines to move, one staircase would be completed and the requirements for a fire no-objection certificate would be addressed. After that, the Pimpri-Chinchwad fire department would conduct a fire-safety audit.
This response establishes an important administrative sequence: the hospital intends to complete access and escape-related works, secure the required fire no-objection process and then undergo an audit. However, the supplied report does not establish when these works will be completed, whether all earlier deficiencies have been rectified or whether interim safety measures have been introduced for vulnerable patients. Those details matter because the hospital remains operational while the corrective process is underway.
A fire audit is useful only when it leads to documented compliance, assigned responsibility and follow-up inspections. The April and June incidents indicate that electrical safety deserves particular attention. The reported cause of the April fire was an overheated wall fan and short circuit, while the June incident was also described as a short circuit. The available material does not establish whether the incidents resulted from faulty wiring, overloaded circuits, inadequate maintenance, defective equipment or another cause. It does, however, show why periodic electrical inspection cannot be separated from fire-safety administration.
The same applies to hospital storage. A functioning facility requires space for linen, equipment, consumables and medical supplies, but storing discarded beds, mattresses and other material in toilets or on a terrace suggests that waste management and asset disposal are not being handled through a clearly visible system. The source report does not provide the hospital’s inventory or disposal records, so the scale of the problem cannot be independently measured from the supplied evidence. It does show that patients and visitors are encountering storage and maintenance failures in areas intended for essential services.
The public-health consequences are also unevenly distributed. A private patient may be able to shift facilities when a hospital’s services are unreliable, but patients using a district hospital often have fewer alternatives. Newborns, intensive-care patients, elderly people and those requiring assisted movement are especially dependent on institutional preparedness. Their safety is determined not just by doctors and nurses, but by building maintenance staff, electrical contractors, fire authorities, hospital administrators and the department responsible for funding repairs.
The report’s central issue is therefore the gap between healthcare provision and healthcare infrastructure. A hospital can have doctors, beds and clinical departments, yet remain unsafe if basic building systems are neglected. Fire protection is not an add-on that can be considered after a blaze. It is a daily service requiring inspections, maintenance records, functional equipment, clear access routes, trained employees and drills that reflect the actual difficulties of moving patients.
The next test for Aundh District Hospital will be whether the proposed works result in a time-bound, publicly documented safety process. The supplied material confirms the three reported incidents, the absence of a post-2021 fire-safety audit as reported, the hospital’s capacity pressures and the district surgeon’s stated plan. It does not confirm the completion status of the proposed six-metre access road, staircase, fire no-objection certificate or fresh audit. Those milestones will determine whether the hospital’s response moves beyond assurance towards verifiable safety compliance.
