Consumer Court relief to Delhi Hospital, Cardiologist in Rs 5.5 crore medical negligence case
No Medical Negligence
New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently exonerated a Delhi-based hospital and its cardiologist from allegations of medical negligence.
It was observed by the Apex Consumer Court that there was a delay in granting consent by the patient's family on time. Further, the Commission took note of the fact that the complaint against the treating doctor was dismissed by the erstwhile Medical Council of India (MCI), now the National Medical Commission (NMC)
"In the light of the totality of the material on record, including the nature of the illness, the delayed presentation of the patient, the suppression of prior treatment history, the delay in obtaining informed consent, the fixed-fee CGHS payment model, and the exoneration by the Medical Council of India, no case of deficiency in service or medical negligence is made out against the Opposite Parties," observed the Commission in its order dated July 24, 2025.
The history of the case goes back to 2015, when the patient was admitted to the treating hospital with acute chest pain. After an angiography, the family of the patient was informed about a significant coronary blockage that required immediate intervention.
Accordingly, the procedure was performed. However, after the surgery, allegedly, the patient's condition worsened rapidly, and he was taken to the ICU. The Medical Superintendent of the hospital and the treating doctor were called; after an hour, he arrived and placed the patient on a ventilator. By that time, according to the complainant, the patient had already succumbed for want of prompt expert resuscitation.
Following this, the patient's family filed a police complaint, and the deceased's body was transferred to AIIMS mortuary, where the Post-Mortem exam was performed. On 10.08.2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-East District, formally referred the matter to the Delhi Medical Council. The Council's Disciplinary Committee, after a record review, delivered a detailed Order in December, 2016, noting that the angiography was unjustifiably deferred on the day of admission for a patient with acute inferior-wall Myocardial infarction; that the Angioplasty was again postponed until day four.
During PTCA on 04 May, 2015, a proximal Right-Coronary-Artery dissection occurred, necessitating stenting, while the distal RCA was left unopened; the patient thereafter suffered Ventricular Tachycardia, required intubation, and finally developed Brady-arrhythmia and cardiac arrest culminating in his death, noted the Medical Council. It was held by the Council that the treating doctor had not exercised reasonable skill and care.
Meanwhile, the doctor was booked on 01.04.2017, and the family of the deceased also filed a consumer complaint before the NCDRC seeking Rs 5.5 crore as compensation.
On the other hand, the hospital and the doctor denied all allegations of medical negligence. They also submitted that the patient was admitted on 30.04.2015 with acute Myocardial infarction occurring approximately 24 hours earlier, and already evaluated previously at Rockland Hospital, a fact not disclosed at admission but revealed later during proceedings. Due to this delay, immediate Thrombolysis or Angioplasty was medically unsuitable and instead, Coronary Angiography was conducted on 01.05.2015, indicating a double-vessel blockage.
They also claimed that even though angioplasty was recommended promptly, the patient's family did not consent immediately, and the patient developed an AV block but remained stable in the ICU. It was alleged that only after obtaining consent from the patient's brother-in-law, the Angioplasty was performed, and during the procedure, a rare complication, dissection of the proximal Right Coronary Artery, occurred, for which a stent was successfully placed.
However, the distal RCA exhibited slow blood flow, managed appropriately by medical protocols. Signs of facial palsy indicating stroke risk forced Doctors to halt further aggressive intervention due to risks of worsening cerebral bleeding. Despite appropriate medical management, the patient succumbed at 6:25 p.m. on 05.05.2015.
Regarding the Delhi Medical Council's observations, it was submitted that DMC initiated an inquiry based on Police communication without initially providing the hospital and the doctor with adequate documentation. In their submissions, the hospital and the doctor had explained clearly the medical rationale for procedural timings, consent-related delays, and procedural management. Despite this, the council's disciplinary Committee, without adequate reasoning or discussion of critical facts, held the doctor liable for not performing Angiography immediately and an Angioplasty subsequently.
It was submitted that the Delhi Medical Council's order was challenged before the MCI. The Ethics Committee of MCI had held that no medical negligence could be attributed to the treating doctor.
While considering the matter, the Apex Consumer Court referred to the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court held that a Doctor is not to be held negligent simply because a mishap occurred.
"Liability arises only where no prudent medical professional in the ordinary course of practice would have adopted the treatment in question," observed the Consumer Court.
"Applying this standard, it becomes evident that the treatment strategy adopted by Dr. *** and the attending team was medically reasoned and guided by the clinical status of the patient, who was haemodynamically stable but still vulnerable. In such cases, immediate Angioplasty without adequate preparatory investigation and family consent could have proven equally, if not more, dangerous. The post-operative complications, including RCA dissection, facial palsy, and eventual Brady-arrhythmia, are all recognized risks of interventional procedures and not ipso facto indicators of negligence. This is supported by the MCI Ethics Committee's conclusive finding that Dr. *** had no discernible reason to delay Angioplasty except for the procedural necessity of obtaining informed consent from the patient's relatives, an interpretation supported by the principle of preponderance of probabilities," it further noted.
Further, the Commission observed that the medical records showed that while the consent for Angiography was obtained on 30.04.2015, the consent for PTCA (Angioplasty), a separate invasive therapeutic procedure, was received only on 03.05.2015 and signed by a different Attendant (brother-in-law).
Accordingly, the consumer court opined that the treating doctor was bound by legal and ethical norms as reinforced by the Apex Court in the case of Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and therefore could not proceed with an invasive and potentially life-threatening procedure without a formal consent form.
"Therefore, the delay, if any, was not due to any omission by the Opposite Parties but arose from a combination of clinical caution and lack of family consensus, neither of which can form the basis of a finding of negligence," held the NCDRC bench.
Further, the Commission noted that even though the Delhi Medical Council had held that there was medical negligence, the Ethics Committee of MCI had exonerated the doctor. "In "Harneek Singh v. Gurmit Singh, (2022) 7 SCC 685", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the MCI's findings in medical negligence cases carry overriding evidentiary value. The Complainant cannot cherry-pick a lower body's opinion while ignoring the binding determinations of the Apex professional Authority, especially when the MCI's opinion has already been relied upon by the Criminal Court in terminating the proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C," the Commission observed at this outset.
Regarding the police case, the Commission noted that being a Delhi Police constable, the Deceased's death naturally triggered a reaction, leading to a prompt Police complaint and registration of an FIR.
"However, the record reflects that the Complaint included wild and unsubstantiated allegations, including claims of illegal kidney removal. These were conclusively disproved by the Post-mortem conducted at AIIMS, which confirmed that both kidneys were intact. The resort to sensational accusations unsupported by medical or forensic proof suggests that the Complainant's version of events is not only exaggerated but also vitiated by conjecture and hearsay. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome or tragic death of the patient does not ipso facto translate into deficiency in service or medical negligence. As laid down in "Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, (2010) 3 SCC 480", The Courts must exercise great caution before substituting their own medical opinion for that of the treating physician, especially when a professional body like the MCI has already deliberated on the issue," noted the Apex Consumer Court.
Accordingly, the NCDRC bench exonerated the treating doctor and the hospital and dismissed the consumer complaint.
To view the order, click on the link below:
