Sultanpur Consumer Court Orders Doctor to Pay ₹5.05 Lakh Compensation in Delivery Death Case

Kanchipuram: The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Kanchipuram held a hospital negligent for engaging a consultant for Neuro-Intervention and Neuro-Radiology without scrutinizing and verifying the qualifications and competency of the Senior Consultant. The Commission also directed the hospital to appoint consultants only after verifying their credentials from Medical Council. The Senior Consultant was restrained from practicing Endovascular-Neuro procedures with immediate effect till he gets registered with Medical Council. The fact of the case was that the complainant wife was diagnosed with symptoms of seizure and was taken to the hospital where she took the consultancy of the Head of the Neuro Science Department and the Senior Consultant. The senior consultant conducted a D.S.A. (Digital Angio of Brain) and advised the patient to insert stent in one of the veins on the right side of brain. The senior consultant conducted a surgical procedure Right Middle Cerebral Artery (M1 Segment) Intracranial Stenting under local anaesthesia. Around 6 hours post procedure the patient suffered onset of weakness of the left side with dysarthria and left facial asymmetry. Consequently, the patient had worsening of power on the left side and was advised to undergo physiotherapy and continuous medical management. The complainant alleged that before the surgery the patient could move all the limbs with a power grade of 5/5 of all limbs, used to walk without any support and did not have any speech problem. But when the patient was discharged, patient had power grade of 5 on right side, left 1/5 in the upper limb and 2/5 in the lower limb. The complainant further alleged that the Senior Consultant instead of suggesting non-surgical treatment hastily carried out the procedure for monetary gains which left the patient with a paralytic attack leading to non-movement of left hand and left leg, facial asymmetry and speech issues. The complainant stated that though he had consented for the procedure he was never explained the possible post-procedure risks. The complainant concluded that on these account the hospital and Senior Consultant should be held negligent. The hospital and Senior Consultant defended the need of the procedure and stated that the patient had been encountering recurrent minor strokes on account of 90% blockage which had to be mandatorily intervened by the intracranial stenting to avoid major stroke. They further defended themselves by stating that the patient and her family were offered detail counselling and the pros and cons of the procedure which included the risk such as major stroke were explained to them and only after they were satisfied informed consent was taken. The hospital and Senior Consultant further defended themselves by stating that the board constituted by the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai has examined the procedure done on the patient and had found no deficiency in the treatment. Also, Tamil Nadu Medical Council has given similar opinion as that given by the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital thereby exonerating the hospital and senior consultant of any medical negligence and hence they were not negligent. The District Consumer Court held the hospital and senior consultant negligent on two counts. The first count was related to the red flag raised by the complainant on the academic qualification of the senior consultant and in turn his competency to perform Endovascular-Neuro procedures. The Consumer Forum pointed out that both the Rajiv Gandhi General Hospital, Chennai and Tamil Nadu Medical Council had nowhere asked the senior consultant to prove his credentials and were silent on

Sultanpur: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Sultanpur, has directed a doctor to pay ₹5.05 lakh compensation to the family of a woman who died during childbirth at a private hospital in 2019.

Patient Shifted from Govt Hospital to Private Facility

The case dates back six years, when the pregnant woman was allegedly misled by two women who persuaded her family to shift her from a government hospital to Star Hospital and Laparoscopic Centre for the delivery.

The patient was admitted to the private facility, where the family claimed that negligence by the doctor and hospital staff during the delivery operation led to her death.

Commission Holds Doctor Responsible After 6-Year Legal Battle

After years of hearings, the DCDRC ruled in favour of the victim’s family and held the treating doctor accountable for medical negligence.

The court ordered:

₹5 lakh as compensation
₹5,000 for litigation costs and mental harassment

The doctor has been granted two months to comply with the order.

Hospital Shut Since 2022

Reacting to the order, the doctor informed the media that the hospital has been closed since 2022 and said he would decide his further legal action after reviewing the full order issued by the consumer court.

Similar Case in Rajasthan

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported a similar case in Rajasthan where the High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of falsely presenting herself as a gynaecologist while allegedly providing negligent pregnancy care.

Orissa High Court Directs State to Issue Passport NOC to Government Doctor Despite Pending Disciplinary Proceedings

Red Fort Blast: Doctor Blocked by Media Outside LNJP Hospital Amid Life-Saving Efforts

Telangana Cracks Down on Quacks: Five Individuals Booked for Illegal Medical Practice

Andhra Pradesh: Woman Dies During Illegal Kidney Transplant, Hospital Sealed

NAAC Issues Show-Cause Notice to Al-Falah University After Red Fort Blast Link

NEET PG 2025 Counselling Delay Pushes Thousands of Doctors Into Uncertainty

About Company

Membership