No Evidence Found Against Hospital and Gynaecologist
Nainital: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand has dismissed an appeal filed against a hospital and a gynaecologist in a case alleging medical negligence during pregnancy treatment that resulted in the death of a six-month fetus. The Commission held that there was no medical evidence on record to substantiate the claims of negligence.
District Forum Order Upheld
The Bench, comprising President Ms Kumkum Ran and Member Mr B.S. Manral, upheld the 2019 decision of the District Consumer Forum, which had earlier dismissed the complaint after finding no proof of medical negligence against the treating doctor. The State Commission observed that the appellants failed to produce any material to remotely indicate professional misconduct.
Background of the Case
The matter dates back to 2013, when the complainant’s pregnant wife was treated at a maternity and trauma centre under the supervision of the respondent gynaecologist. The couple alleged that despite repeated assurances that the pregnancy was normal, the fetus was declared dead on November 7, 2013, following an ultrasound. The woman subsequently underwent medical termination of pregnancy at another centre.
Allegations of Negligence and Defence
The couple filed a consumer complaint alleging gross medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The hospital supported the written statement of the gynaecologist, who denied the allegations. The doctor contended that the patient did not always adhere to medical advice, delayed ultrasounds and had gaps in follow-up visits. She maintained that no guarantee of childbirth was ever given and that termination of pregnancy was advised promptly after detection of fetal death.
Prior Criminal and Medical Proceedings
The Commission noted that the husband had earlier initiated criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC. An expert committee, constituted on the direction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, found no negligence, leading to dismissal of the complaint in 2014. Although a revision petition was initially allowed by the Sessions Court, the High Court of Uttarakhand later set aside that order on June 19, 2025, holding that no case of medical negligence was made out.
Findings of Medical Council
The Uttarakhand Medical Council had also examined the matter and found no professional misconduct on the part of the doctor. An appeal filed before the Ethics Committee was discussed in 2016, but no adverse findings were recorded against the respondent.
Supreme Court Precedents Cited
Relying on judgments of the Supreme Court of India in Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) and Dr Harish Kumar Khurana vs. Joginder Singh (2021), the Commission reiterated that medical negligence cannot be presumed solely because treatment fails or results in an adverse outcome. Clear and cogent medical evidence demonstrating breach of standard care is essential.
Appeal Found Bereft of Merit
Concluding that no independent medical evidence had been produced by the appellants, the Commission held that the District Commission had rightly dismissed the complaint. Observing that the appeal lacked merit and did not warrant interference, the State Commission confirmed the earlier order and dismissed the appeal.
