Doctor, Nursing Home Liable For Medical Negligence Causing Permanent Infertility: Delhi Consumer Commission

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 pregnant woman due to delayed diagnosis and substandard med-ical care.

The Commission, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Dr Rashmi Bansal (Mem-ber), found that the opposite parties breached the threefold duty of care by misrepresenting medi-cal qualifications, failing to order timely diagnostic tests in a high-risk pregnancy, and ignoring clear warning signs, ultimately resulting in irreversible infertility.

Brief Facts

The complainant, Samreen, after testing positive for pregnancy, visited Family Health Care Cen-tre, owned by Opposite Party No. 2, on 24 July 2020, where she was treated by Dr Kuljit Kaur Gill (Opposite Party No. 1). Between 11 August 2020 and 2 September 2020, she visited the doctor multiple times, repeatedly complaining of abdominal pain and continuous bleeding.

Despite these symptoms, OP No. 1 neither prescribed an ultrasound nor advised any diagnostic tests. Instead, the complainant was treated with medicines for acidity and vomiting and was re-peatedly assured that her condition was normal. However, her symptoms continued to worsen.

On 7 September 2020, when the pain became unbearable, the complainant was taken to another doctor, who advised urgent medical tests. Laboratory reports revealed the presence of a dead em-bryo in her womb. She was subsequently shifted to Kasturba Hospital, where doctors informed her that her condition was extremely critical and performed emergency surgery.

To save her life, one of her fallopian tubes had to be removed. She was informed that due to exten-sive internal damage, she would not be able to conceive in the future. The complainant remained bedridden for several months thereafter.

The complainant initially approached the Delhi Medical Council, which did not find the doctor guilty of criminal negligence but recorded findings of misrepresentation of qualifications and shortcomings in treatment. Aggrieved, she filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negli-gence and deficiency in service against the doctor and the nursing home, seeking compensation of ₹44.29 lakh along with litigation costs and cancellation of the nursing home's registration.

Arguments of the Opposite Parties

Dr Kuljit Kaur Gill (Opposite Party No. 1) contended that she was merely a visiting doctor at the nursing home and that, under the principle of vicarious liability, any acts or omissions attributable to her would be the responsibility of the hospital. She further argued that the complainant had not approached her for prenatal care but had complained of pain in the upper abdominal region, which she diagnosed as a gastric issue and treated accordingly. It was also contended that the complain-ant's age and previous obstetric history significantly contributed to the complications.

Opposite Party No. 2 (the nursing home) and Opposite Party No. 3 (Department of Health and Family Welfare) neither appeared nor filed any reply to the consumer complaint.

Observations & Findings of the Commission

The District Commission held that the complainant suffered permanent infertility as a direct con-sequence of medical negligence and institutional failure on the part of the opposite parties.

Relying on the findings of the Medical Council, the Commission observed 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. By projecting herself as a specialist gy-naecologist without possessing the requisite qualification, OP No. 1 was held guilty of professional misrepresentation.

The Commission further observed that OP No. 1 breached the threefold duty of care by misrepre-senting her qualifications, failing to order timely diagnostic tests in a high-risk pregnancy, and rendering substandard medical care despite repeated complaints of pain and bleeding. It held that OP No. 1 treated the complainant in a casual and negligent manner while simultaneously acknowl-edging her as a high-risk patient, which was found to be internally inconsistent and amounted to a clear breach of the duty of care, thereby constituting medical negligence.

The Commission further observed that the delayed diagnosis was the proximate cause necessitat-ing emergency surgical intervention, resulting in the removal of the fallopian tube and the perma-nent loss of the complainant's reproductive capacity. The nursing home (Opposite Party No. 2) was held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of OP No. 1, having failed to verify her qualifica-tions and to ensure proper medical supervision.

Accordingly, the Commission allowed the complaint and awarded ₹20,00,000 as compensation to the complainant towards medical expenses, mental agony, and litigation costs, with liberty to Op-posite Party No. 2 to recover the amount from Opposite Party No. 1 in accordance with law.

Case Title

Samreen v. Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill & Anr.,

Consumer Complaint No. DC/77/CC/148/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order