SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CS) 32811

CONSUMER STATE
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President, Mr. C.M. Singh, Member
Sh. Sandeep Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Max Super Speciality Hospital Malsi Estate, Dehradun – Respondent
Consumer Complaint No. SC/5/CC/12/2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. Avnit Rastogi
For the Respondents: Sh. S.K. Agarwal

Medical practitioners and hospitals must ensure informed consent and meet the requisite standard of care, failing which they are liable for negligence.

Headnote:(A) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - Medical negligence - The complainant alleged deficiencies in service at a super specialty hospital leading to the death of his mother post-treatment. Key issues revolved around the conduct and supervision during a Dobutamine Stress Echo (DSE) test that resulted in cardiac arrest. The Court found that the hospital failed to ensure informed consent and proper monitoring of the procedure. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15)

(B) Medical Negligence - A hospital is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees. Requirement for informed consent and standards of patient care were underscored highlighting essential elements of establishing medical negligence. (Paras 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The complainant's mother underwent a DSE test which led to cardiac arrest and subsequent vegetative state before her death. The complainant sought substantial compensation citing negligence and misleading treatment costs. (Paras 1, 8, 11)

Findings of Court:
The hospital and the doctor were held liable for medical negligence due to failure in securing informed consent and ensuring appropriate emergency response. Compensation awarded for medical expenses and damages. (Paras 14, 15)

Issues: Main issues included the adequacy of consent obtained for the DSE test, the competency of the hospital to handle medical emergencies, and the overall accountability for the patient's care. (Paras 10, 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The absence of recorded consent points to negligence. The party responsible for the conduct of the test was held primarily liable, with the hospital found vicariously liable for failures in the standard of care. (Paras 11, 14)

Result: Complaint partly allowed; hospital ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 10 Lakh and interest. (Para 15)

Table of Content
1. complainant alleges medical negligence leading to death post-treatment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. lack of informed consent constitutes medical negligence. (Para 10 , 11)
3. hospital held liable for negligence and ordered to pay compensation. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER

(Per: Mr. C.M. Singh, Member):

This complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed on behalf of the complainant. Brief facts of the case are as such that the complainant states that his mother late Smt. Shakuntala Devi was experiencing pain on the left side of her face and visited the opposite party No. 1 – Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dehradun (in short “Hospital”) for consultation on dated 01.04.2014. Upon examination and review of her previous medical records, the doctor at opposite party No. 1 – Hospital advised that she required surgery and also prescribed certain medications. The complainant decided to obtain second opinion and consulted Dr. A.K. Singh – opposite party No. 2, Director, Max Institute of Neurosciences – MIND, Dehradun of the Hospital on dated 10.04.2014. After reviewing the medical reports, the opposite party No. 2 advised that a MRI and certain other medical tests be conducted. The MRI was done on dated 10.04.2014 and other tests were conducted on dated 11.04.2014. Upon perusal of the reports, the opposite party No. 2 informed the complainant that the surgery of his mother would be performed on dated 14.04.2014 and instructed the Cardiac clearance tests to be carried out prior to the surgery. The complainant was advised to take his mother to Dr. Preeti Sharma – opposite party No. 3, Senior Cardiologist of the Hospital. The opposite party No. 3 alongwith Dr. Punish Sadana – opposite party No. 4 also a Senior Cardiologists MD (Med.) DM examined the complainant’s mother, reviewed her medical reports and advised for a Dobutamine Stress Echo (DSE) Test. The said DSE test was scheduled to be conducted by Dr. Amit Rana – opposite party No. 5 of Hospital. The opposite party No. 5 performed the said DSE test on dated 12.04.2014. During the course of the said test, after administration of the peak doses, the complainant’s mother suffered a cardiac arrest and became unresponsive, hypotensive and was immediately shifted to ICU. As a result of such incident, the complainant’s mother remained in a vegetative and unconscious state from 12.04.2014 onwards. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 5 failed to take necessary precautions during the procedure, as he neither explained the nature and risk before nor properly monitored the administration of the Dobutamine injection and rate of its infusion, as required under standard medical procedural. The conduct of opposite party No. 5, therefore, fell below the standard of a reasonable competent medical practitioner. The complainant further alleged that despite a super specialty hospital, the opposite party No. 1 lacked essential and adequate equipment to effectively handle the emergency situation. Further, the complainant stated that at the time of admission, he was informed total cost of treatment would be approximately Rs. 1,65,000/-. However, to his shock, he later received a bill amounting to Rs. 5,61,000/-, which he was compelled to deposit on dated 09.05.2014. Thereafter, the complainant’s mother was forcibly discharged from the Hospital. Subsequently, the complainant admitted his mother to Nirmal Ashram Hospital, Rishikesh where she passed away on dated 13.05.2014. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 11.05.2014 to the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 alleging medical negligence and demanding refund of treatment expenses alongwith compensation for the loss suffered. However, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 failed to respond properly leaving the complainant with no option to file present complaint. However, the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 neither paid the amount, nor responded, which amounted deficiency in service, compelling the complainant to file a presen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top