Institutes of National Importance Like JIPMER Covered by Consumer Protection Act if Services Aren't Universally Free: Puducherry State Commission - 2025-09-05

JIPMER and Senior Doctor Held Liable for Negligence in Patient's Death, Ordered to Pay ₹22.9 Lakhs Compensation

Puducherry : The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Puducherry has held the Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER) and one of its senior gynaecologists, Dr. Latha Chaturvedula, jointly and severally liable for medical negligence that led to the death of a 22-year-old B.Tech graduate.

The Commission, presided over by Justice R. Pongiappan, awarded the parents of the deceased a compensation of ₹22,94,986, to be paid with 9% interest from the date the complaint was filed in 2017. The judgment established that JIPMER, despite being an 'Institute of National Importance,' falls under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act as it does not provide free services to all patients.

---

Background of the Case

The complaint was filed by C. Parthiban and S. Jayanthi, the parents of P. Sri Raja Rajeswari, their only child. In December 2015, Ms. Rajeswari, who worked at Amazon in Bangalore, was diagnosed with an ovarian dermoid cyst at JIPMER.

On December 28, 2015, Dr. Latha Chaturvedula, a professor in the gynaecology department, performed a laparoscopic cystectomy. The patient was discharged the next day. However, she soon developed severe abdominal pain, vomiting, and loose motions. Despite multiple follow-up visits to JIPMER between December 30, 2015, and January 9, 2016, her condition did not improve.

On January 20, 2016, faecal matter was found oozing from her surgical wound. She was rushed to JIPMER and diagnosed with peritonitis—a severe infection of the abdominal lining. An emergency laparotomy (open surgery) on January 21 revealed a perforation in her caecum (a part of the large intestine). Despite the surgery, her condition deteriorated rapidly due to septic shock, and she passed away on January 22, 2016.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Complainants' Arguments: The parents argued that the caecal injury was a direct result of a "botched-up" laparoscopic surgery performed negligently by Dr. Chaturvedula. They contended that the doctor failed to exercise reasonable care, especially given the patient's history of a prior appendectomy, which increases the risk of internal adhesions. They further alleged that the post-operative care was deficient, as the doctors failed to diagnose the bowel injury despite repeated complaints of severe pain and gastrointestinal distress.

Hospital's and Doctor's Defence: Dr. Chaturvedula and JIPMER denied all allegations of negligence. They argued that the complaint was not maintainable as JIPMER provides free treatment and is an 'Institute of National Importance.' They suggested that the patient's pre-existing Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) could have caused her symptoms and death. They further claimed there was no possibility of injuring the caecum during the procedure, as it is located 5-7 cm above the ovaries. The defence also asserted that the patient contributed to the outcome by leaving the hospital against medical advice and failing to consult the surgery department on January 8 and 9, 2016, as advised.

---

Commission's Findings and Legal Principles Applied

The Commission framed three key issues: the maintainability of the complaint, the question of negligence, and the quantum of compensation.

1. JIPMER's Liability Under Consumer Protection Act: The Commission rejected JIPMER's argument that it was exempt from the Act. Citing the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indian Medical Association vs. V.P. Shantha , the Commission noted that hospitals fall into three categories. JIPMER, which charges certain categories of patients for services while providing free treatment to others, squarely falls into the third category.

"Thus it is seen that JIPMER does collect charges from patients... Therefore JIPMER would squarely fall under conclusion 10 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Shantha case... and therefore covered under the CP Act."

2. Finding of Medical Negligence: The Commission established that the patient’s death was caused by a caecal injury. The hospital's own death certificate, issued by a colleague of the operating surgeon, stated the cause of death as "Septic shock," "Fecal peritonitis," and "Caecal injury," with the injury estimated to have occurred approximately three weeks prior—aligning with the date of the laparoscopic surgery.

The Commission dismissed the defence's claim that IBS caused the bowel perforation, citing extensive medical literature that confirms IBS is a functional disorder that does not cause physical damage or perforation to the bowel. It also found the argument that the caecum could not be injured during the procedure to be incorrect, referencing medical texts that list bowel injury as a known, albeit rare, complication of gynaecologic laparoscopy, especially in patients with prior abdominal surgery.

"This commission is compelled to deduce, especially in the absence of any other plausible explanation from the Opposite parties that faulty procedure adopted during the Laparoscopy surgery on the patient on 28.12.2015 has caused perforation of the caecum which led to septicemia and eventually death. The Opposite party 1 has not exhibited the required reasonable skill and care in performing the procedure."

The Commission applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), shifting the onus to the hospital to explain the injury, which they failed to do satisfactorily. The delayed diagnosis during post-operative visits was also deemed a failure in the standard of care.

3. Contributory Negligence and Compensation: While finding the doctor and hospital negligent, the Commission also noted a degree of contributory negligence on the part of the patient and her parents. They had failed to follow the specific instruction to seek an opinion from the surgery department on January 8 and 9, 2016.

"Perhaps if she had gone to the Surgery department... the perforation may have been found at that time itself... Hence it is held that the patient and the complainants themselves have contributed for their sufferings at least to a limited extent."

Following principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Pranay Sethi , the Commission calculated the total loss of dependency at ₹30,59,982. It then reduced this amount by 25% (₹7,64,996) for contributory negligence, arriving at a final compensation of ₹22,94,986.

---

Final Order

The Commission directed Dr. Latha Chaturvedula and JIPMER to jointly and severally pay the complainants ₹22,94,986 with 9% annual interest from February 17, 2017, until realization, along with ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.