New Delhi: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), South-II, has held an allopathic doctor negligent for prescribing an Ayurvedic medicine to a minor patient who later died, and directed him to pay ₹5,000 compensation to the child’s father.
The Commission observed:
“OP-1 had prescribed Ayurvedic medicine for which he was not qualified. Hence, we find OP-1 negligent to this extent.”
Case Background: Minor Dies After Treatment for Fever and Abdominal Pain
The incident dates back to 2010, when the complainant brought his son to a hospital run by the accused doctor (OP-1), after the child developed low-grade fever and abdominal pain.
Doctors initially suspected dengue fever, given its prevalence during that period, and conducted a few preliminary tests. The complainant alleged that the child did not have high fever at the time of admission.
Around 10 PM, the boy complained of severe stomach pain. The on-duty doctor examined him and instructed the nurse to administer an injection. His condition deteriorated rapidly—white froth began coming out of his mouth, and he soon became unconscious.
The child was referred to another hospital, where doctors declared that he had died approximately 30 minutes earlier.
Allegations Against the Treating Hospital
The complainant accused the doctor and the hospital of:
- Lacking a ventilator and ambulance despite claiming 24-hour emergency services
- Referring the patient to another hospital to escape liability
- Failing to provide proper prescription details
- Not addressing elevated SGPT levels
- Not conducting an abdominal X-ray or ultrasound
- Administering Hycort 100 mg, a high-risk injection, without justification
A postmortem conducted at AIIMS reportedly found 500 cc of yellow pus-like fluid in the child’s chest.
Doctor’s Defence: Condition Not Severe Initially
The doctor argued that:
- Dengue tests were not done due to the family’s financial constraints
- The child later developed sudden respiratory distress, for which a lifesaving steroid injection was administered
- Parents allegedly insisted on taking the child to another hospital and behaved aggressively
- Police had to be called due to the crowd’s behaviour
- Consent is not required when giving emergency steroid treatment
- Initial treatment with IV fluids, antibiotics (Cefoperazone + Sulbactam), and Ayurvedic syrup Livfit was based on provisional diagnosis
The doctor emphasised that six to seven hours was insufficient to clinically establish a definitive diagnosis.
Medical Council Proceedings: Conflicting Findings
A complaint was initially filed before the Delhi Medical Council (DMC), which found the doctor negligent and specifically noted:
- Livfit is an Ayurvedic formulation
- An allopathic practitioner should not prescribe Ayurvedic medicines
The doctor then appealed to the Medical Council of India (MCI), which in August 2020 exonerated him.
The complainant challenged this before the Delhi High Court, but later withdrew the petition. The High Court directed that the consumer complaint be decided independently.
Consumer Court’s Findings and Order
After examining all records, the DCDRC concluded that the only proven negligence was the doctor’s act of prescribing an Ayurvedic drug without proper qualification.
The order stated:
“OP-1 had prescribed Ayurvedic Medicine for which he was not qualified. Hence, we find OP-1 negligent to this extent and direct OP-1 to pay ₹5,000 as compensation. Order to be complied within 90 days, failing which interest at 7% shall apply.”
The court also noted that other aspects—such as lack of ultrasound due to financial constraints and the limited assessment window—did not amount to proven negligence.
