Pranav B Prem

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, has partly allowed an appeal filed by the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow, setting aside the finding of medical negligence against the treating doctors while holding the institute liable solely for deficient documentation and record-keeping. The Bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) held that although the complainant failed to establish negligence in the course of treatment, SGPGI was accountable for its administrative lapses surrounding incomplete and improperly maintained medical records.

Also Read: NCDRC Dismisses ₹1.55 Crore Medical Negligence Claim, Says No Lapse by Northern Railway or Batra Hospitals

The complaint arose from the treatment of the complainant’s son, who was first admitted to SGPGI in November 1992 with suspected typhoid fever. Subsequent investigations, including a bone marrow test conducted on 02.12.1992, confirmed a diagnosis of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL). Chemotherapy was commenced on 18.12.1992. The complainant later alleged that despite the confirmed diagnosis, the child continued to remain in the general ward under a paediatrician rather than being shifted to the Immunology Department. Upon relapse, the child was readmitted to the Immunology Department on 09.05.1994, where he was treated by Dr. Sonia Nityanand, Dr. Chandrashekhar and Dr. Negi, and eventually shifted from a private room to the isolation ward. He developed hypotension and passed away on 31.05.1994. The complainant pointed to inconsistencies in the cause of death reflected in two certificates—one mentioning “septic shock” and the other “leukaemia”—and further alleged improper treatment, lack of consent and failure to provide complete medical records.

The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission had accepted the complainant’s allegations, found the treating doctors negligent and directed payment of ₹49 lakh in compensation with interest. SGPGI and the treating doctors approached the NCDRC contending that the findings were baseless, unsupported by medical evidence and were arrived at on the basis of internet material treated as expert opinion without disclosure or opportunity to rebut.

Also Read: NCDRC Dismisses Complaints Against Religare Health Insurance; Holds Aviation Training Expressly Excluded From Policy Coverage

The NCDRC examined the records and held that there was no material to support the allegation of medical negligence. The Commission found that the diagnosis of leukemia was made promptly in 1992 and that chemotherapy and subsequent treatment were administered in accordance with medical protocols and in consultation with the Immunology Department. It clarified that the SGPGI did not have a Haematology Department at the relevant time and therefore the State Commission’s conclusion that the child should have been treated by haematologists was unfounded. The Commission also noted that shifting the child to the isolation ward was undertaken to provide closer observation and better monitoring, and could not be labelled as negligence. Crucially, the NCDRC criticised the State Commission for deciding the case without any expert medical opinion and for relying on theoretical internet material that had never been placed on the record. The Commission held that such reliance violated the principles of natural justice, as “the opposite parties were deprived of the opportunity to meet the material relied upon in the judgment.”

While exonerating the doctors, the NCDRC found SGPGI deficient in its administrative obligations. It held that the failure to preserve and furnish complete medical records of the 1992 admission—including consent documentation—constituted deficiency in service. The Commission emphasised that the medical institution was duty-bound to maintain proper documentation and that lapses in record-keeping created ambiguity and hardship for the complainant. These deficiencies justified imposing limited liability on the institution even in the absence of medical negligence.

Also Read: Medical Services Rendered Free of Cost by Military Hospitals Not a ‘Service’ Under Consumer Protection Act; NCDRC Dismisses Complaint as Not Maintainable

Accordingly, the NCDRC partly allowed the appeal. It set aside the findings of medical negligence against the treating doctors and quashed the award of ₹49 lakh compensation. SGPGI (Opposite Party No.1), however, was held liable solely for deficient record-keeping and was directed to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation and ₹1 lakh as litigation cost to the complainant. The appeal was thus disposed of to the extent indicated.

Appearance

For the Appellant(s): Mr. Somiran Sharma, Advocate

For the Respondent No.1: In person

For the Respondent No.2: Mr.Subodh Jha, Advocate

Cause Title: Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences vs Rajendra Nath Keserwani

Case No: First Appeal No.456 Of 2023

Coram: Justice A.P. Sahi (President), Bharatkumar Pandya (Member)