Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Sudip Ahluwalia, Presiding Member and
Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member
Kamlesh Yadav – Complainants
versus
National Heart Institute and Ors. – Opp. Party
Consumer Complaint No.130 of 2018
Decided on 24.7.2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – Medical Services – Medical Negligence – Death of patient after Angioplasty – Deceased was a serving Constable in Delhi Police and was admitted under Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), which operates on a fixed Package-payment model – Treating Hospital stood to gain nothing financially by extending patient’s stay – Doctor is not to be held negligent simply because a mishap occurred – Liability arises only where no prudent medical professional in ordinary course of practice would have adopted treatment in question – Doctor had no discernible reason to delay Angioplasty except for procedural necessity of obtaining informed consent from patient’s relatives – In the light of totality of material on record, including nature of illness, delayed presentation of patient, suppression of prior treatment history, delay in obtaining informed consent, fixed-fee CGHS payment model, and exoneration by Medical Council of India, no case of deficiency in service or medical negligence is made out against Opposite Parties – Treatment administered was consistent with clinical standards and dictated by medical prudence under constrained circumstances – Complainant’s allegations, though emotionally charged, are legally unsustainable and factually unsubstantiated – Complaint dismissed. (Paras 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 25)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Sudip Ahluwalia, Member.—This Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking compensation from the Opposite Parties for causing death of the patient due to medical negligence and deficiency of service.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that on 30.04.2015, Shri Rajendra was admitted to National Heart Institute, New Delhi/Opposite Party No. 1 with acute chest pain. After an angiography, they informed both the Complainant (wife of Shri Rajendra) and her brother-in-law that significant coronary blockage required immediate intervention. A coronary procedure was accordingly scheduled and performed on 04.05.2015 at approximately 2:30 p.m., but post-operative progress was poor. But instead of stabilising, the patient’s condition worsened rapidly through the night. At 2:00 a.m. on 05.05.2015, frantic activity erupted in the Intensive-Care Unit, and the nursing staff telephoned Medical Superintendent/Opposite Party No. 2 and Dr. Vinod Sharma/Opposite Party No. 3 repeatedly, urging their immediate presence because the patient’s vitals were crashing. The Complainant entered the ICU and found her husband in a markedly deteriorated state with no senior Doctor in attendance. An hour later, the Opposite Party No. 3 arrived and placed the patient on a ventilator. By that time, according to the Complainant, Shri Rajendra had already succumbed for want of prompt, expert resuscitation. A subsequent Post-Mortem placed the time of death at around 6:00 a.m. on 05.05.2015.
3. A PCR call (DD No. 33-A) was lodged the same day at P.S. Amar Colony by the Complainant’s brother-in-law, alleging death from medical negligence. Under MLC No. 5987/2015 the body was transferred to AIIMS mortuary, where the Post-Mortem examination 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 full 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, that during PTCA on 04 May, 2015 a proximal Right-Coronary-Artery dissection occurred, necessitating stenting, while the distal RCA was left unopened; that the patient thereafter suffered Ventricular Tachycardia, required intubation, and finally developed Brady-arrhythmia and cardiac arrest culminating in his death at 06:25 a.m. On 05.05.2015, holding that Dr. Vinod Sharma had not exercised reasonable skill and care, the Committee issued him a warning and directed that he complete 15 hours of CME in Interventional Cardiology within six months. On 28.03.2017 the Complainant, through her Counsel, got issued a Legal Notice to all the Opposite Parties demanding Rs.5.50 crores in compensation. The Opposite Parties’ reply denied liability and branded the allegations baseless. Meanwhile on 01.04.2017, P. S. Amar Colony registered FIR No. 0119/2017 under Section 304 - A of the Indian Penal Code against the Opposite Party No. 3. The case at the time of filing of the Complaint, was pending before the Court of Ms. Ankita Lal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket, where a Charge-Sheet dated 21.11.2017 had been filed, and the next hearing fixed for 13.04.2018.
4. The family circumstances amplify the loss of Shri Rajendra. He was a Constable in Delhi Police, and the sole earner for the Complainant (a homemaker), their son, presently studying engineering and a younger brother-in-law who, though living at his paternal home, received financial support from the deceased. The son’s first attempt at the IIT entrance examination in 2015 failed, which the Complainant attributes to trauma following his father’s death. The household now faces acute financial strain with them having no residential property in Delhi-NCR, nor sufficient ancestral agricultural
Medical Negligence – Doctor is not to be held negligent simply because a mishap occurred.
(1) Medical Board Report - Looking to the Medical Board Report, entire record, Bed Head Ticket of the patient, Commission was of the view that, the patient was given proper care, timely and possible ....
Doctors cannot be held liable for negligence if they exercised standard care and the delay in treatment is due to the complainant's actions.
“Since doctors made all efforts to resuscitate the patient from the cardiac arrest but could not revive the patient and since treating doctors performed their duty with reasonable standard of care, t....
Critical condition - If the patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, keeping that in mind the blame cannot be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had ....
(1) Medical negligence – Consent for admission in ICU is not a legal requirement for admission in Intensive Care Unit for a life-threatening condition – Medico-legal procedure or formalities should n....
Medical negligence – Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by person against whom accusation of negligence is made.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
