The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, has awarded a compensation of ₹20 Lakh to a complainant who suffered the loss of her fallopian tube and permanent infertility due to the medical negligence of a treating doctor. The Commission held the nursing home vicariously liable for the acts of the doctor, who failed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy timely and misrepresented her qualifications.
The Commission, presided over by Mr. Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar with Member Dr. Rashmi Bansal, allowed the complaint filed by Samreen against Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill (OP1) and the owner of the nursing home (OP2). The Commission found OP1 guilty of breaching the duty of care by failing to conduct necessary investigations despite the complainant’s high-risk obstetric history, leading to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy. The Commission directed the nursing home (OP2) to pay ₹20,00,000/- to the complainant, granting liberty to the hospital to recover the amount from the doctor.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Samreen, approached the nursing home on July 24, 2020, after a home urine pregnancy test (UPT) showed a positive result. Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill (OP1) confirmed the pregnancy solely based on the home UPT without conducting any independent check-up or investigation and prescribed medicines.
The complainant alleged that despite visiting the doctor repeatedly on August 11, August 15, August 26, and September 2, 2020, with complaints of abdominal pain and continuous bleeding, OP1 did not prescribe any tests or mention a diagnosis. OP1 only prescribed medicines for acidity and assured the complainant that her condition was normal.
On September 7, 2020, due to unbearable pain, the complainant visited another doctor who advised urgent tests. The reports revealed a dead embryo in the womb, and she was rushed to Kasturba Hospital. She underwent emergency surgery for a ruptured ectopic pregnancy, during which her fallopian tube was removed to save her life. The complainant was informed that she would not be able to conceive again due to extensive internal damage.
Arguments of the Parties
The complainant contended that OP1 treated her with “utter negligence and disregard for medical norms,” failing to conduct basic checks which led to the death of the foetus and the loss of her reproductive capacity. She highlighted findings from the Delhi Medical Council (DMC), which observed that OP1 prescribed medicines without proper investigation and was not entitled to use the suffix M.S./M.D. as she held only an MBBS qualification.
OP1, in her legal submissions, argued that she was merely a visiting doctor and that the nursing home (OP2) should be held vicariously liable for any alleged act or omission. OP1 claimed that the complainant visited for gastric problems and pain in the upper liver area, not prenatal treatment. She further argued that she had prescribed an ultrasound, but the complainant failed to undergo it.
OP2 and OP3 (Department of Health and Family Welfare) did not appear before the Commission.
Court’s Analysis
The Commission rejected OP1’s defense, noting that the treatment sheets showed OP1 had noted “UPT positive” on the first visit but failed to get a confirmatory test or obstetric ultrasound. The Commission observed:
“OP1 has not written the problems or complaints with which complainant had approached her… No diagnosis was made by OP1 with respect to the problem identified… OP1 did not mentioned any investigation for reaching the conclusion on the basis of which medicines were prescribed.”
The Commission found that OP1 prescribed an ultrasound only on September 2, 2020, approximately 40 days after the first visit, despite the complainant reporting bleeding and pain on four prior occasions. The Commission termed OP1’s conduct as “sheer negligence,” stating:
“The conduct of OP1 in treating the complainant in a casual and negligent manner, while simultaneously acknowledging her as a high-risk patient, is internally inconsistent and establishes a clear breach of the duty of care.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, the Commission held that OP1 breached the duty of care in deciding investigations and administering treatment. The Commission also invoked the Bolam Test, stating that “no responsible body of medical opinion would consider it acceptable to ignore red flags” or avoid an early ultrasound for 40 days in a suspected pregnancy.
Regarding OP1’s qualifications, the Commission noted that OP1 used the suffix “M.S.” despite being registered only with an MBBS degree. Relying on Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel, the Commission held that practicing without qualification is “negligence per se.”
On the issue of vicarious liability, the Commission relied on Savita Garg v. National Heart Institute and Dr. Reba Modak v. Sankara Nethralaya, ruling that the hospital (OP2) is liable for the negligent acts of its doctors. The Commission stated:
“It is crystal clear that the hospital, OP2, is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of OP1, and has been under duty to verify the qualifications of its doctors, monitor treatment and ensure adherence to medical standards.”
Decision
The Commission concluded that the medical negligence of OP1 directly led to the complainant’s permanent loss of motherhood.
“This Commission is of considered opinion that an amount of ₹20,00,000/- (twenty lakh) is fair, proportionate, legally justified, and commensurate with the nature, gravity, and irreversible consequences of the injury suffered by the complainant.”
The Commission directed OP2 to pay the compensation within six weeks, failing which it shall carry an interest of 9% per annum. OP2 was granted liberty to recover the amount from OP1. The complaint against OP3 was dismissed.
