The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kakinada, has directed a Nellore-based hospital and its cardiologist to pay ₹99 lakh in compensation to the family of a patient who died during treatment. The Commission held that the hospital and the treating doctor failed to justify administering dialysis to a patient with serious cardiac complications and found them liable for medical negligence.
Consumer Commission Awards ₹99 Lakh Compensation
Allowing the complaint in part, the Commission directed the hospital and the cardiologist to jointly and severally pay ₹99 lakh as compensation to the complainants.
Out of the total compensation, ₹50 lakh has been earmarked for the deceased patient’s minor daughter. The Commission ordered that the amount be deposited in a fixed deposit in her name until she attains majority. It further permitted the child’s mother, as the natural guardian, to withdraw only the accrued interest periodically for the minor’s education, maintenance, and welfare.
The Commission also awarded ₹10,000 towards litigation costs and directed the opposite parties to comply with the order within 45 days. Failing compliance, the awarded amount will carry interest at 9% per annum thereafter.
Allegations of Negligent Treatment
According to the complaint, the patient was admitted to the hospital on February 28, 2025, and was initially in a stable condition. The complainant alleged that the hospital and the treating doctor failed to properly diagnose the patient’s condition and administered inappropriate treatment, including dialysis despite the patient suffering from serious cardiac complications.
It was further alleged that the patient’s condition deteriorated following the treatment, resulting in his death on March 2, 2025.
The complainant also accused the hospital and the doctor of issuing false and manipulated medical records, failing to provide a proper explanation for the patient’s deteriorating condition, and giving evasive replies when questioned about the treatment. Seeking compensation for the loss of the family’s earning member, the complainant claimed ₹99 lakh as compensation, reimbursement of ₹3 lakh paid towards treatment, and litigation costs.
Hospital Denied Negligence
The hospital and the treating cardiologist denied all allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service. They contended that the patient had been admitted in a critical condition with multiple co-morbidities, including uncontrolled diabetes, renal complications, and cardiac illness.
According to the hospital, the treatment was provided in accordance with accepted medical protocols and dialysis was medically indicated and performed under expert supervision. The opposite parties also denied allegations of fabricated records, wrongful treatment, coercion, and suppression of facts.
They further argued that the complainant had failed to produce expert medical evidence to establish negligence and relied on judicial precedents, including Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital, Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, and Dr. Neeraj Sood v. Jaswinder Singh, to submit that the death of a patient alone does not constitute medical negligence.
Commission Finds Gaps in Hospital Records
After examining the material on record, the Commission observed that the patient had been diagnosed with “Acute AWMI with Severe LVD,” indicating serious cardiac complications.
The Commission also noted that the hospital failed to produce the complete medical case sheet of the patient. During cross-examination, the hospital’s own witness admitted that only progress notes and nursing notes had been produced, while important records such as admission notes, ICU charts, dialysis requisitions, nephrology and cardiology consultation records, investigation reports, consent forms, dialysis monitoring charts, medication charts, treatment protocols, and death records were not placed before the Commission.
Questions Raised Over Dialysis Decision
The Commission further observed that although the hospital claimed to have followed accepted medical standards, it relied on an ECG report relating to a period before the patient’s admission instead of producing a contemporaneous cardiac evaluation conducted during hospitalisation.
It noted that no satisfactory explanation was provided for relying on the pre-admission ECG report, creating serious doubts regarding the adequacy of the patient’s assessment before administering critical treatment.
During cross-examination, the hospital’s witness also admitted that, as per ICMR norms, dialysis should not be administered in cases of heart stroke. The witness, however, acknowledged that the patient had undergone dialysis twice.
The Commission also took note of the allegation that dialysis had been performed without the advice of the treating nephrologist. Although the witness denied the allegation, he admitted that no document recommending dialysis by the nephrologist on February 28, 2025, had been produced before the Commission.
Important Highlights
- DCDRC, Kakinada directed a Nellore-based hospital and its cardiologist to pay ₹99 lakh compensation in a medical negligence case.
- The Commission held that the hospital failed to justify administering dialysis to a patient with serious cardiac complications.
- ₹50 lakh of the compensation has been reserved for the deceased patient’s minor daughter in a fixed deposit until she attains majority.
- The Commission noted that the hospital failed to produce the complete medical records of the patient during the proceedings.
- The hospital and doctor have been given 45 days to comply with the order, failing which the compensation will carry interest at 9% per annum.
