Heard the arguments from the Petitioner in person and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.
The chronology of events is as below:
On 08.12.2018, the Complainant filed a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, South Mumbai, initially claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.  Thereafter, on 05.04.2019, he filed an application for amendment of the Complaint to enhance compensation to Rs.41,00,000/-.  The District Forum allowed the amendment of the Complaint.
 
Being aggrieved, the Opposite Party filed a Revision Petition before the State Commission, Maharashtra.  The State Commission set aside the
part of the Order concerned to the enhancement of compensation.  But so far, it granted the permission to bring on record the facts which, according to the Complainant, subsequently revealed to him is concerned.  The relevant observation of the State Commission is reproduced as below:

“After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the respondent in person and having gone through the impugned order, in so far as permission given by the District Forum (now Commission) be enhancing claim to Rs.40 lakhs apparently appears unsustainable.  Consumer Protection Act, 2019 has come into force w.e.f. 20/07/2020 and its implementation is prospective. Moreover, the District Commission has failed in interpreting the provisions in regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, which in view of the provisions of the new Act, does not depend upon the claim made but is determined on the amount of consideration paid for the goods purchased or services availed. It cannot be disputed that, at the relevant time, when complainant had filed the complaint, the District Commission was having pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaints wherein compensation claimed is not exceeding Rs. 20 lakhs. The District Commission, therefore, could not have allowed or permitted the complainant to enhance the claim upto Rs.40 lakhs, which was not within the jurisdiction of the said District Commission. In the circumstances, so far as that part of the order is concerned, it has to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. In so far as permission granted to bring on record the facts which according to the complainant, subsequently revealed to him is concerned, I see no reason to interfere in the said order. In the order itself, the District Commission has given opportunity to the opponent/petitioner to file its additional reply, after amendment. If revision petitioner wants to file such additional written version, same shall be filed within one month from the date of this order before the District Commission. The revision petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.  No order as to costs.”

Being aggrieved, the Complainant approached this Commission through this Revision Petition. 
We have heard the Complainant in person and the learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the Orders of both the fora and material on record. 

We do not find any error or irregularity in the Order passed by the State Commission which has rightly held that the District Forum does not 
possess the pecuniary jurisdiction under the Act, 1986.  In the facts and specificities of the instant case of alleged medical negligence, in our view, Complainant seeking more compensation is justified.  Therefore, the Complainant shall not go remediless for want of jurisdiction or certain technicalities.   
Moreover, under the Act, 2019, the pecuniary jurisdiction is based on the paid consideration.  The Complainant came to know subsequently about the negligence caused to second baby, therefore, he prayed enhancement of compensation and amendment of Complaint.  Admittedly, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the District Forum has no pecuniary jurisdiction beyond Rs.20,00,000/-.
We would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neena Aneja & Anr. Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. (2022) 2 SCC 161 held that 

“Repeal of 1986 Act/Enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Forums by virtue of new enactment i.e. 2019 Act-Held, does not affect pending proceedings-Proceedings instituted before the commencement of the 2019 Act, held, shall continue before the Consumer Forums corresponding to those under the 1986 Act.
Under the new enactment, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Commission, SCDRC and NCDRC stood enhanced-Held, proceedings instituted before the commencement of the 2019 Act on 20.07.2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the 1986 Act (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Forums) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the 2019 Act - Further, though Ss. 34, 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act indicate that the respective Consumer Forums can entertain complaints within the pecuniary limits of their jurisdiction, the mere use of the word "entertain" in defining jurisdiction is not sufficient to counteract the overwhelming legislative intention - To ensure consumer welfare and deliberately not provide for a provision for transfer of pending proceedings in the 2019 Act.”

Similar view has taken by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.3258/2017 - Narender Chopra Vs. M/s Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. decided on 16.03.2021.

Therefore, without touching the merits of the case, the amendment is allowed for enhanced compensation, the Complaint falls under pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.  The Complaint shall be adjudicated before the State Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai, instead of the District Forum.  Therefore, under such circumstances, the District Forum is directed to transfer the Complaint to the State Commission for further adjudication under Act, 1986.  
The Revision Petition is allowed with the directions.