Negligence in COVID treatment, hospital engaged 'fake' doctor: Consumer court orders Rs 40 lakh compensation

Hyderabad: Holding a Hyderabad-based hospital and doctor guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service during the COVID-19 treatment of a woman, who died despite undergoing treatment, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-2, Hyderabad, has directed them to jointly pay Rs 40 lakh to his family.

The history of the case goes back to 2020, when the patient was undergoing treatment at the treating hospital and was treated by Dr. Kumar, who is allegedly not qualified to provide treatment under the guidelines of the Indian Medical Association. The patient was suffering from fever while the 1st wave of the COVID pandemic was going on during September, 2020.

After 20 days of treatment, the patient was discharged and charged Rs 13,27,069 for treatment. The complainants (husband and son of the deceased) alleged that because of the wrong diagnosis and treatment rendered by an inefficient and unqualified person employed by the treating hospital, the patient died despite spending a huge amount. Allegedly, the treating doctor administered the patient with "Tocilizumab" injection without any proper supervision, and the patient was affected with "Pulmonary Fibrosis" which led to her death.

It was alleged that no pulmonologist visited the patient, despite it being claimed in the medical bill, and only the treating doctor attended the patient in the capacity of a General Physician. The Patient was allegedly discharged without curing the disease by endorsing on the Discharge summary “Discharged at our Request”, but actually, after noticing that the family's funds had been exhausted, the hospital authorities allegedly suggested that the patient was almost cured and therefore home treatment could be provided.

Later, the patient was taken to Aware Global Hospital, where a Pulmonologist attended to the patient and found that the patient had been attacked with "Pulmonary Fibrosis" and expressed that medicines can buy the patient time, but her life could not be saved. 

On the other hand, the treating hospital denied the allegations and claimed that the patient was treated by qualified specialists and the treating doctor was only a personal physician. Further, the hospital claimed that the patient was discharged against medical advice, and she died 72 days later. Therefore, the hospital argued that the patient's death was unrelated to her treatment at the hospital.

While considering the matter, the Commission noted that the Complainants, in support of their arguments, submitted medical records, discharge summaries, bills, and FIRs. On the other hand, the hospital and treating doctor could not file supporting evidence.

Accordingly, the Commission opined that medical negligence was established against the treating doctor and hospital. It observed,

"The Complainants proved their case against the Opposite Parties in respect of their negligent acts and deficiencies in services and defective treatment committed by the 1st Opposite Party by engaging un-qualified and Fake Doctors by filing all their evidences on oath and also by filing Para-wise chronological events in support of their Evidence Affidavit on oath but whereas the Opposite Parties failed to file their Evidence in support of their pleadings which has got no credence at all."

"Written Arguments of the 1st Opposite Party without there being any Evidence Affidavit on their behalf shall not be looked into on the premise that mere Pleadings without proof on oath carry no evidentiary value and cannot be relied upon to deny negligence or deficiency in service," the Commission further noted.

The District Consumer Court concluded that the treating hospital acted very negligently in treating the patient and made the family spend more than Rs 13,27,069. Accordingly, it granted them Rs 40 lakh compensation.

"It is fact that the 1st opposite party acted very negligently in treating the deceased Patient who is the Wife of the 1st Complainant and mother of the 2nd Complainant and made them to expand more than an amount of Rs. 13,27,069.00 by engaging the 2nd Opposite Party (Fake Doctor) service for which negligent acts upon their part, the Complainants lost their beloved family member for which we are under the considered opinion that it is just and reasonable to allow this Complaint by awarding Rs. 40,00,000/- towards refund of Hospital Charges, Compensation, Consortium, Loss of Love and affection from the deceased and damages that cannot be compensated as apportioned hereunder. Both the Complainants have filed a Joint Affidavit on 17th April, 2026 vide Sr.No. 810 of 2026 to look-after the Well-being of *** who is the daughter of 1st Complainant and deceased Smt. T. Srilatha who is unable to participate in the proceedings in view of her ailment," ordered the consumer court.

Out of Rs 40 lakh, the Commission ordered to pay Rs 25 lakh to the deceased's husband and Rs 15 lakh compensation to the deceased's son. "Pay Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) towards refund of Hospital Charges, Compensation, Consortium, Loss of Love and affection from the deceased and damages that cannot be compensated; as apportioned hereunder: - i. Out of which, the 1st Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Lakhs only). ii. The 2nd Complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only). iii. Both the Complainants shall look-after the Well-being of the daughter of the 1st Complainant and Sister of the 2nd Complainant who is ailing and unable to participate in the Proceedings," ordered the DCDRC, further directing to pay Rs 25000 as costs of legal proceedings.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/05/02/hyderabad-dcdrc-covid-compensation-344955.pdf

Also Read: Anaemic patient dies after unwarranted hysterectomy: Hyderabad consumer court slaps Rs 30 lakh compensation on hospital, gynaecologist