Delhi State Commission Rejects Medical Negligence Complaint Against Rockland Hospital; Holds Treatment Was Per Medical Protocol
Pranav B Prem
In a recent decision , the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a medical negligence complaint against Rockland Hospital and three of its doctors, holding that the treatment provided was in accordance with standard medical protocols. The bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) held that the complainant failed to prove allegations of negligence, unfair trade practices, or breach of duty of care by the hospital or its medical staff.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by Mr. Sandeep Kumar, son of the deceased patient Shri Hukam Chand. He alleged gross negligence in the treatment of his father at Rockland Hospital and sought compensation exceeding ₹50 lakhs under various heads, including mental agony, emotional trauma, medical expenses, and violation of CGHS norms.
According to the complainant, the patient was admitted to Rockland Hospital on 12.03.2016 with breathing difficulties. The hospital’s Dwarka branch redirected them to the Qutub Institutional Area branch, where the patient was admitted under the nephrology team. He was later discharged on 25.03.2016. The complainant alleged that no discharge summary was provided at the time, and the patient was prematurely discharged under the false pretext of recovery.
On 06.04.2016, the patient was readmitted due to worsening symptoms, including generalized swelling and weakness. Over the next several weeks, the patient’s condition deteriorated, ultimately resulting in death on 23.05.2016. Allegations were levelled regarding improper administration of anti-tuberculosis drugs, delay in surgical intervention, unqualified dialysis staff, lack of basic facilities such as oxygen, and forced procurement of medicines and diagnostic tests from outside despite the hospital being CGHS-empanelled.
Submissions and Defense by the Hospital
The hospital and doctors—Dr. Umesh Singh, Dr. Vikram Kalra, and Dr. Amber Khera—denied the allegations. They submitted that the patient was suffering from multiple chronic illnesses including CKD, diabetes, hypertension, and COPD. On admission, he was in fluid overload and presented with signs of lower respiratory tract infection. Hemodialysis was initiated via femoral catheter, and other supportive care including IV antibiotics was administered.
The patient was noted to be restless, and the need for physical restraint was recorded with documented consent. On 18.03.2016, the patient refused further dialysis and the insertion of a Right Internal Jugular Vein Catheter. Despite a high TLC count and deteriorating renal function, the patient and his family insisted on discharge. The discharge summary advised urgent AV fistula surgery and dialysis three times a week—advice that was not followed by the complainant or the patient.
The hospital contended that during the second admission, diagnostic imaging including CT Chest and pleural tap suggested the presence of pleural effusion, a common manifestation of tuberculosis. Based on pulmonology consultation, anti-tuberculosis medication was initiated. The patient later developed sepsis and septic shock. Although dialysis and ICU care continued, the patient eventually passed away.
The hospital further submitted that the patient’s attendants repeatedly delayed or refused consent for critical procedures. The procalcitonin test, which the complainant claimed had to be done externally at his expense, was not available in-house, and the complainant refused to get it done outside. The complainant also declined dialysis at critical junctures, as documented in the nursing and doctors' notes.
Findings of the Commission
The Commission examined each allegation in detail. On the issue of unfair trade practices, it noted that while the complainant claimed he was forced to purchase medicines and undergo tests externally, he had not submitted any documentary proof—such as bills or invoices—to support these claims. Nurse notes from 20.04.2016 also recorded that the patient’s family had refused the procalcitonin test. As for the Rs. 10,000 allegedly collected before AV fistula surgery and Rs. 11,000 before readmission, the Commission held that the complainant failed to furnish receipts or evidence to establish coercion. It accepted the hospital’s policy of collecting reimbursable deposits for CGHS patients as a reasonable practice.
On the allegation of incorrect treatment, especially the administration of anti-tuberculosis medication, the Commission held that the hospital’s decision was medically justified. The hospital produced relevant literature stating that pleural effusion was one of the most common forms of tuberculosis. The pulmonologist initiated anti-TB medication after a CT chest showed bilateral collapsed lung consolidation with pleural effusion and lymph node enlargement—indicative of pulmonary Koch’s. The complainant, on the other hand, did not present any counter-medical literature or expert to challenge this line of treatment.
Significantly, the Commission referred to the Expert Medical Opinion issued by the Delhi Medical Council dated 08.06.2018. The opinion confirmed that the treatment provided, including anti-tubercular therapy, dialysis, and intensive monitoring, was as per standard medical protocol. It concluded that the patient was already in end-stage renal disease and had developed sepsis, which ultimately led to death despite appropriate medical intervention.
On the matter of delay in AV fistula surgery and concerns regarding staff qualifications, the Commission found no evidence to suggest that the delay was attributable to negligence. It held that the complainant’s repeated failure to follow medical advice, including refusal of consent for dialysis and other procedures, amounted to contributory negligence.
Verdict
The Commission concluded that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service or medical negligence on the part of the hospital or its staff. It held: “A perusal of the expert opinion leaves no room for doubt that the complainant was treated as per standard medical protocol… The patient was at the end stage of kidney failure and had pleural effusion which was considered to be tubercular. The patient had fluid overload and required dialysis and ultimately succumbed to the ailment owing to sepsis.” Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Appearance
Mr. R. K. Mahto, Counsel for the complainant
Mr. GaffarHussain, proxy counsel for the OP No. 1
Mr.Fanish Kumar Rai, Counsel for the OP No. 2 and 3
Mr. AmardeepSoni, Counsel for the OP No. 4
Cause Title: Sandeep Kumar V. Rockland Hospital & Ors.
Case No: Complaint Case No. 807/2017
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal [President], Hon’ble Ms. Pinki [Member (Judicial)]
[Read/Download order]
