Dehradun: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dehradun, and its cardiologist Dr Rana guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, ordering the hospital to pay ₹10 lakh compensation to the complainant whose mother died following complications during a Dobutamine Stress Echo (DSE) Test.
The Commission found that the hospital and its doctor failed to obtain informed consent from the patient prior to conducting the DSE test—an essential requirement given the risks associated with the procedure.
Primary Negligence on Dr Rana, Hospital Vicariously Liable
The Commission observed that Dr Rana, who conducted the DSE test, was primarily responsible for the negligent act. The hospital was held vicariously liable for the actions of its employee.
Meanwhile, consulting doctors—Dr Singh (Neurosurgeon), Dr Preeti Sharma and Dr Sadana (Cardiologists)—were exonerated as they only advised investigations but did not participate in the procedure. No independent negligence was found on their part.
Case Background
The matter dates back to 2014, when the complainant’s mother visited Max Hospital with facial pain and was advised surgery. Seeking a second opinion, the complainant consulted Dr Singh, who recommended further tests and cardiac clearance before surgery.
Following this, senior cardiologists Dr Sharma and Dr Sadana advised a DSE test. During the procedure, after peak-dose administration, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest, became unresponsive, and was shifted to the ICU, where she remained in a vegetative state. She later died on 13 May 2014 at another hospital.
The complainant alleged:
- The DSE test was conducted without proper monitoring
- Risks were not explained
- No informed consent was obtained
- Emergency equipment was inadequate
- The hospital overcharged, billing ₹5.61 lakh instead of the initially stated ₹1.65 lakh
Hospital’s Defence
The hospital argued that:
- Consent was obtained, and the patient was informed of risks
- Cardiac arrest is a known complication
- Immediate emergency protocol (Code Blue, CPR, ICU shift) was followed
- The hospital is equipped to handle emergencies
- The patient had a history of hypertension, obesity and restricted mobility
Court’s Findings: No Evidence of Consent
The Commission rejected the hospital’s defence, stating:
“There is no material to establish that consent was obtained from the patient or her attendants. Absence of consent amounts to deficiency in service and constitutes negligence.”
The court also cited the Supreme Court’s 2019 judgment in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital vs. Master Rishabh Sharma, which held that failure to inform patients of risks constitutes negligence and that hospitals are vicariously liable for their doctors’ actions.
Final Order
The Consumer Court ruled:
- Max Hospital (Opposite Party No. 1) and Dr Rana (Opposite Party No. 5) are jointly and severally liable
- The hospital must pay ₹10 lakh, including ₹5.84 lakh incurred medical expenses
- Litigation cost of ₹50,000
- 6% interest per annum from 22 July 2014 until actual payment
- Payment to be made within one month
Consulting doctors (Opposite Parties 2, 3 & 4) were fully exonerated.
