State Consumer Commission Orders ₹18 Lakh Compensation with Interest to Deceased’s Father
Mumbai: In a significant judgment, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Nashik-based Workhardt Hospitals guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, which led to the death of a young patient due to cardiac arrest in 2010. The Commission directed the hospital to pay ₹18 lakh as compensation to the deceased’s father, along with 10% interest from 2010.
The ruling came in response to a complaint regarding a 2010 incident in which a young boy admitted for a nosebleed at the hospital reportedly collapsed and developed chest pain around 3:00 AM on April 16. Allegedly, despite his deteriorating condition, he was not shifted to the ICU until 7:00 AM. He was later declared dead at 8:50 PM.
Delay in ICU Admission Proved Fatal
The Commission, presided over by Justice S.P. Tavade and member Vijay C. Premchandani, observed that the complainant successfully demonstrated negligence on the hospital’s part in delaying ICU admission, violating the patient’s right to timely and competent care.
The complainant further alleged that even after the patient died around 8:30 AM, treatment continued until 12:30 PM, allegedly to fabricate evidence of medical intervention. The hospital, according to the complaint, also restricted access to the patient’s relatives from 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM and did not inform them about his worsening condition.
Hospital Denies Charges, Cites Medical History
Workhardt Hospital denied the allegations and claimed that ICU admission was offered but refused by the patient’s father. Citing the ICU register, the hospital insisted that the patient had multiple underlying conditions—hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking history, and a sedentary lifestyle—and had stopped taking prescribed antihypertensive medication (Betaloc) prior to admission, which allegedly triggered the cardiac arrest.
The hospital stated that it provided all necessary treatments, including antihypertensives, blood thinners, and nasal packing. It claimed the patient was shifted to ICU at 6:15 AM and was declared dead after resuscitation efforts at 12:50 PM.
State Commission Overturns District Forum’s Decision
Earlier, the District Consumer Commission had dismissed the complaint. However, the complainant appealed the decision in 2011. On July 17, 2025, the State Commission ruled in his favour, setting aside the earlier verdict and holding the hospital accountable.
The Commission concluded that the hospital failed to act with urgency despite clear signs of deterioration, thereby breaching its duty of care. It ordered the payment of ₹18 lakh as compensation, along with accrued interest since 2010, to the patient’s father.
