Delayed Diagnosis And Misrepresentation Of Qualifications Causing Permanent Infertility Amounts To Medical Negligence: Delhi Consumer Commission
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) has held a treating doctor and a nursing home guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, holding them liable for causing permanent infertility to a woman due to delayed diagnosis, misrepresentation of medical qualifications, and substandard medical care during a high-risk pregnancy. The Commission found that the negligence directly resulted in irreversible reproductive harm to the complainant. The complaint was decided by a Bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President, and Rashmi Bansal, Member. The Commission concluded that the opposite parties had breached the threefold duty of care owed to a patient by failing to conduct appropriate investigations, rendering negligent treatment, and falsely projecting professional qualifications, thereby constituting medical negligence.
The complainant, Samreen, tested positive for pregnancy in July 2020 and first visited Family Health Care Centre on 24 July 2020, which was owned by Opposite Party No. 2. She was treated by Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill, Opposite Party No. 1. Between 24 July 2020 and early September 2020, the complainant made multiple visits to the clinic complaining of abdominal pain and continuous bleeding. Despite these persistent symptoms, no ultrasound or diagnostic investigations were advised, and she was repeatedly prescribed medicines for acidity and vomiting while being reassured that her condition was normal.
The Commission noted that the complainant had a high-risk obstetric history, including a previous pregnancy loss, which required heightened medical vigilance. However, Opposite Party No. 1 neither recorded a proper diagnosis in the treatment sheets nor ordered any investigation for nearly 40 days. The Commission found this conduct to be internally inconsistent, as the doctor acknowledged the complainant as a high-risk patient while simultaneously treating her in a casual and negligent manner.
On 7 September 2020, when the complainant’s pain became unbearable and she was on the verge of losing consciousness, she was taken to another doctor who immediately advised diagnostic tests. Laboratory investigations revealed the presence of a dead embryo, and the complainant was rushed to Kasturba Hospital, where emergency surgery was performed. To save her life, one of her fallopian tubes had to be removed. The Commission recorded that due to the extensive internal damage caused by delayed diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy, the complainant permanently lost her ability to conceive.
The complainant initially approached the Delhi Medical Council, which did not find criminal negligence but recorded serious professional misconduct. The Medical Council found that Opposite Party No. 1 was qualified only as an MBBS doctor and was not entitled to use the “M.S./M.D.” suffix, as her foreign qualification was not recognised under Indian law. The Disciplinary Committee held that by projecting herself as a specialist gynaecologist without the requisite qualification, the doctor had misrepresented her credentials and failed to follow standard medical protocols in treating a high-risk pregnancy.
Relying on these findings, the Consumer Commission held that Opposite Party No. 1 breached the threefold duty of care by misrepresenting her qualifications, failing to order timely diagnostic tests, and administering treatment without proper investigation. The delayed diagnosis was found to be the proximate cause of the emergency surgical intervention and the permanent loss of the complainant’s reproductive capacity. The Commission observed that timely ultrasound and appropriate investigation could have detected the ectopic pregnancy at an early stage and prevented the irreversible injury.
The nursing home, Opposite Party No. 2, was held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the treating doctor. The Commission held that the nursing home failed to verify the doctor’s qualifications and did not ensure proper medical supervision, thereby contributing to the institutional failure that led to the complainant’s injury. The complaint against the Department of Health and Family Welfare was dismissed, as no deficiency in service was established against it.
Considering the gravity of the harm suffered, including irreversible infertility, physical trauma, prolonged pain, and mental agony, the Commission partly allowed the complaint. It awarded ₹20,00,000 as compensation to the complainant towards medical expenses, mental agony, and litigation costs. The nursing home was granted liberty to recover the amount from the treating doctor in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Samreen v. Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill & Anr.,
Case No: DC/77/CC/148/2023
Coram: Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President, and Rashmi Bansal, Member
