Hyderabad Consumer Commission Holds Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence In Fatal Hysterectomy Performed Without ICU Or Ventilator
Pranav B Prem
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, has held Vitality Health Services liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service, which led to the tragic death of a woman following a hysterectomy surgery. The Commission, comprising President B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and Member C. Lakshmi Prasanna, directed the hospital and three of its doctors to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation along with Rs. 50,000 as legal expenses to the deceased patient’s husband and their two children.
The complainant, K. Ravi Kumar, had approached the Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging that his wife, the only earning member of the family, died due to negligent post-operative care and lack of critical medical infrastructure at Vitality Health Services (the hospital). His wife had been diagnosed with adenomyosis and underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy at the said hospital on August 15, 2021. The surgery was performed by general surgeons (Opposite Parties 3 and 4) and administered under general anesthesia by the anesthetist (Opposite Party 5).
According to the complainant, shortly after the surgery, he was informed that his wife had suffered a stroke and was no longer breathing. The hospital allegedly lacked a mechanical ventilator and insisted on shifting the patient to a super-specialty facility — Wellness Hospital — despite other closer options. The patient was transferred using Bain’s circuit in an ambulance without full emergency equipment, a delay that ultimately led to fatal cardio-pulmonary complications. The patient was declared dead in the early hours of August 16, 2021.
The complainant highlighted several serious lapses in hospital infrastructure and care: there was no stretcher or ramp to move patients, forcing the staff to carry his wife in a bedsheet; the hospital lacked a ventilator and ambulance services; and no specialist gynecologist was involved in the surgery. It was alleged that the hospital and the doctors failed to adhere to basic medical protocols, and the procedure was conducted without ensuring the availability of critical post-operative care.
Despite multiple complaints lodged with the Ramgopalapuram Police Station and the District Medical and Health Officer (DMHO), no effective action was taken. The SHO even sought a response from the DMHO on several issues, such as whether anesthesia could be administered in the absence of a ventilator and whether the surgeons were qualified to conduct hysterectomy procedures. Though an expert committee and the Heads of various departments at Gandhi Hospital were involved, their reports kept referring the matter from one department to another. The Department of Anesthesia acknowledged delayed recovery due to a prolonged laparoscopic procedure and metabolic derangement, while the Department of Neurology found no neurological cause of death, only suggesting a return to anesthesiology for further opinion. With the investigation going in circles, the complainant filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court, which directed both the DMHO and the SHO to respond and act on the complaint. However, even after the High Court’s direction, no concrete steps were taken.
In response, the hospital argued that the complainant was not a consumer and that the complaint was thus not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. They also alleged tampering of materials and suppression of facts by the complainant.
Upon examination of the evidence — including expert reports, case sheets, and affidavits — the Commission found that the hospital lacked essential facilities such as a mechanical ventilator, ICU infrastructure, and ambulance services. The Commission observed that the surgery lasted over four hours under general anesthesia and that the hospital had failed to anticipate or prepare for post-operative complications. The patient had become hypoxic post-surgery and was intubated, but due to the lack of mechanical ventilation, she had to be shifted to another hospital — a delay that spanned approximately three hours, during the critical “golden hour” of medical emergency. The bench held that such serious lapses amounted to clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and its doctors.
The Commission also noted that the patient, after being admitted to Wellness Hospital, was immediately placed on ventilator support and provided appropriate medication. Despite all revival efforts, including CPR and adrenaline injections, the patient could not be saved. Hence, no negligence or deficiency in service was found on the part of Wellness Hospital, and the complaint was dismissed against them.
In conclusion, the Commission found Vitality Health Services and its three doctors liable and directed them to jointly and severally pay Rs. 10 lakhs in compensation to the complainant and his children, along with Rs. 50,000 towards legal costs. The order is to be complied with within 45 days, failing which the compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order.
Appearance
Counsel For The Complainant: Mr. Ekant Hiranandani
Counsel For The Opposite Parties: M/s. U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao
Cause Title: K. Ravi Kumar V. M/s Vitality Health Services & Ors.
Case No: C.C No. 347/2023
Coram: Honble Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi [President], Honble Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna [Member]
[Read/Download order]
