Kolkata Paediatrician files Rs 50 crore defamation suit over medical negligence allegations in infant death case
Kolkata: A senior paediatrician, based in Kolkata, has filed a Rs 50 crore defamation suit in the Calcutta High Court over allegations of medical negligence in an infant death case.
Alleging medical negligence against the treating paediatricians, the father of the deceased infant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Alipore.
Background:
Medical Dialogues had previously reported that earlier this year, two Kolkata-based Pediatricians had been accused of medical negligence for allegedly not conducting any physical examination of a three-month-old infant and continuing to provide treatment via telephonic consultation.
The child died shortly after he was rushed to the treating hospital. It was alleged that no emergency protocol was followed at the hospital, and the death certificate was issued by one of the doctors on personal letterhead.
Following this, the deceased child's father, a practising advocate, filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kolkata III (South), which admitted the complaint and directed that notice be issued to the doctors.
Allegations of Medical Negligence:
On December 31, 2023, the complainant's three-month-old infant developed a high fever, and the treating paediatrician was contacted immediately. The child's mother was advised to give oral "Sumol" drops at regular intervals. The child was advised to be given a maximum of 14 Sumol drops after the mother informed the doctor that the weight of the child had increased to around 5 kg 600 gms. However, the child's condition did not improve, and he was getting more restless.
Worried over this, the child's mother repeatedly contacted the paediatrician and asked whether the child should be taken to the hospital and examined there. It was alleged that the paediatrician categorically told the child's mother that there was no need to take the child to a hospital and also added that there was no point taking the child to the hospital as nothing would be done there.
Meanwhile, another doctor was also contacted, who also allegedly asked not to take the child to the hospital and advised increasing the medicine drops from 14 to 18. The first paediatrician also approved this.
Thereafter, after administering 18 drops of the medicine, the child started getting cold and motionless. Ultimately, when he was taken to the hospital, the second doctor, after examining him, informed the family that the child had died.
Defamation Suit:
Now, one of the two accused paediatricians has filed a Rs 50 crore defamation suit against the complainant. He submitted that the complainant is a close relative of his, and the child's paediatrician was someone else.
Regarding the treatment of the infant, the doctor claimed in his plea that the child's mother had contacted him over the phone seeking clarification on the increase in the dosage of a medicine called "Sumol" prescribed by the child's paediatrician, as the fever of the child was not going down.
The child's mother had allegedly intimated that the treating paediatrician had prescribed SUMOL 14 drops. After being informed that the child weighed approximately 5.6 kgs when last weighed and had increased in weight since then, the petitioner-paediatrician had suggested that the said SUMOL drop dosage could be increased from 14 to 18 drops, subject to the same being approved by the treating doctor, considering the weight of the child.
As per the plea, that the petitioner-doctor had also specifically advised a few blood tests and urine tests, subject to again the confirmation of the treating pediatrician and the petitioner had classified that the urine test was required to be done immediately. He had also advised to start Augmentin immediately after collection of urine. According to the petitioner-doctor, the entire suggestion was subject to the approval of the treating Paediatrician of the child. Allegedly, he was never contacted after this during the day and only in the evening when the child was brought dead to the treating hospital. The petitioner-doctor also submitted that the complaint was rejected by the West Bengal Medical Council (WBMC) on 13.05.2025.
"After having failed to obtain a favourable order from any of the forums, the Defendant No. 1 approached the Honble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata on self same frivolous allegations and filed a thoroughly misconceived complaint case against the plaintiff, inter-alia, seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Crores). The said complaint was registered as C.C. No. 3 of 2026, which is pending adjudication," the petitioner-doctor submitted in his plea.
Pointing out that the DCDRC issued a notice to him after admitting the complaint, the petitioner-paediatrician submitted, "Being aggrieved by improper exercise of jurisdiction by the Forum in receiving the complaint and in taking cognizance of the matter, the plaintiff immediately filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta..."
Apart from the complainant, the petitioner-pediatrician also sued the People for Better Treatment, an organisation, which initially raised the issue. "The plaintiff states that the defendant nos. 1 and 2, acting out of vengeance, personal animosity, and malice, deliberately embarked upon a calculated course of conduct intended to malign, scandalise and irreparably damage the reputation of the plaintiff in the eyes of the general public and within his professional community. These publications have thus seriously impacted the reputation of the plaintiff affecting his right to practice enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution," the pediatrician mentioned in his plea.
"The plaintiff states that the injury caused to his reputation is irreversible and incapable of exact monetary computation. However, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to compensate the plaintiff by way of substantial damages, both compensatory and exemplary, to redress the harm caused and to deter such reckless and malicious conduct," the plea further mentioned.
