Wrong HIV positive diagnosis: Consumer court holds AIIMS Rishikesh guilty of medical negligence, slaps Rs 60k compensation

Rishikesh: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Uttarakhand, recently upheld the order of a District Consumer Court directing the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh, to pay Rs 60,000 as compensation to a patient who had been wrongly declared by the hospital as HIV positive.

Later, medical reports from two different hospitals declared him HIV-negative. The State Consumer Court took note of this, and it referred to the Supreme Court's observations regarding essential ingredients of medical negligence, including (i) the existence of duty of care; (ii) breach of such duty and (iii) consequential injury or damage suffered by the patient.

Referring to this, the State Commission observed, "The repeated recording of the respondent No. 1 (patient) as HIV positive in the official medical records without producing any supporting diagnostic material, clearly constitutes the breach of that duty."

"HIV is a disease carrying serious medical, social and psychological implications and diagnosis of such a condition must necessary be made with utmost care and supported by appropriate medical evidence. The appellant has failed to establish that the diagnosis recorded in its medical discharge sheet was based on accepted medical protocol. As a consequences of such an erroneous recording, the respondent No. 1 suffered mental agony, social stigma and emotional distress. Thus, all the three essential ingredients required to establish medical negligence stand satisfied in the present case," it noted, while upholding the District Commission's order.

Case Background:

The history of the case dates back to 2014, when the complainant fell ill. As his condition did not improve, he approached the treating doctor, who, after examination, referred him to a higher centre for further treatment. Thereafter, the complainant was admitted to AIIMS, Rishikesh, where he was informed that he was HIV positive and was discharged on 16.07.2014.

Thereafter, the patient got himself examined at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Science, Dehradun, where he was found to be HIV negative. According to the complainant, AIIMS had wrongly declared him as HIV positive and, due to this, he suffered mental and physical agony, apart from financial loss. 

Accordingly, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of AIIMS, he demanded Rs 50,000 as expenses incurred. Since AIIMS did not pay the same, he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Court, Haridwar.

The treating doctor denied all allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service. He submitted that the patient was treated after conducting certain tests and those tests did not include the HIV tests.

AIIMS also denied all the allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service and pleaded that the patient was duly examined and treated in accordance with prescribed medical protocol. Further, the hospital argued that its report was correct.

After hearing the matter, the District Commission, Haridwar, allowed the complaint, directing AIIMS to pay Rs 50,000 compensation within one month and also granted Rs 10,000 towards litigation charges to the patient.

Challenging this order, AIIMS filed an appeal before the State Consumer Court arguing that the District Commission failed to properly appreciate the facts, pleadings, and evidence on record and erroneously held it guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. It contended that no expert evidence was produced by the complainant to establish medical negligence and the findings of the District Commission were based on conjunctures and misappreciation of facts. 

Further, it was argued that at the relevant time, AIIMS did not have an integrated counselling and testing centre for HIV testing, and therefore, neither any HIV test was conducted, nor any HIV positive diagnosis was made by it. Further, it stated that there was no consumer – service provider relationship between the parties, and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable on these grounds.

Observation by State Consumer Court: 

The State Commission addressed the argument that AIIMS provided free-of-cost public negligible charges and therefore the complainant was not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Holding that this argument was devoid of merit, the State Commission observed, "Paper No. 50 clearly reveals that the appellant charged an amount of Rs. 270/- from the respondent No. 1 towards investigation and other charges. Thus, it cannot be said that the services rendered to the respondent No. 1 were wholly free of charges. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. Sh. V.P. Shantha & Ors., 1996, AIR 550, has held that where the hospital rendered the services for such services fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986...In view of the aforesaid legal position, the complaint was rightly held to be maintainable."

The Commission further noted that the discharge summary issued by AIIMS Rishikesh specifically recorded the complainant as HIV posirive and also advised him to seek further management of HIV. 

"In the discharge sheet, the treating doctor has repeatedly recorded the respondent No 1 as HIV positive. Thus, the contention of the appellant that no HIV diagnoses was made by AIIMS, is belied by its own medical records. If, as pleaded by the appellant that no HIV test had been conducted and no HIV diagnoses had been made, there was no occasion for repeatedly recording the respondent No. 1 as HIV positive, in the discharge sheet," observed the State Commission.

It also took note of the fact that the complainant placed on record the subsequent medical reports from Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical & Health Sciences, Shri Mahant Indiresh Hospital, Dehradun, showing him HIV negative.

"Although the appellant has questioned on the finding of District Commission on the ground that no expert evidence has been produced. In the facts of the present case, the negligence alleged emanates from the appellant’s own medical records. Therefore, the burden shifted upon the appellant to justify the repeated HIV positive entries recorded by its treating doctor. In the absence of any explanation or supporting documents from the appellant, the District Commission was justified in drawing an adverse inference against it," noted the Commission.

The State Consumer Court observed that the Supreme Court of India had consistently held that the essential ingredients of medical negligence are (i) the existence of duty of care; (ii) breach of such duty and (iii) consequential injury or damage suffered by the patient. "In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant owed duty of care to respondent No. 1," it held.

Accordingly, holding AIIMS liable for medical negligence, the State Consumer Court further upheld the District Commission's order, noting,

"In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the District Commission has appreciated proper perspective and rightly held the appellant (AIIMS Rishikesh) guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. We find no perversity and illegality and material irregularity in the findings recorded by the District Commission warranting interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be affirmed."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/21/state-consumer-court-aiims-rishikesh-366269.pdf

Also Read: Patient with CSF Rhinorrhea paralysed after lumbar drain: NCDRC slaps Rs 15 lakh compensation on Ludhiana hospital, neurologist, anaesthetist