Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds Mother Hospital Liable For Colonoscopy Without Patient's Informed Consent
Praveen Mishra
10 July 2026 2:37 PM IST
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising President Sri C.T. Sabu and Members Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R., has held the Director of Mother Hospital, Thrissur, its Medical Superintendent and the doctor who advised and performed a colonoscopy liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service for conducting the elective procedure without obtaining the patient's informed consent.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Sarojini, consulted Mother Hospital, Thrissur, for complaints of abdominal discomfort and loose stools. After preliminary investigations, the treating doctor advised her to undergo a colonoscopy.
The complainant alleged that the procedure was performed without obtaining her informed consent, as consent was obtained only from her daughter despite the procedure being elective and the complainant being competent to decide. During the colonoscopy, the complainant suffered a colon perforation, which necessitated an emergency laparotomy and prolonged hospitalization.
She further alleged that the doctors failed to adequately assess her medical history, did not properly explain the risks associated with the procedure, maintained inadequate medical records, and delayed appropriate post-procedure care, thereby aggravating her condition.
Alleging medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking refund of the medical expenses incurred for the colonoscopy and subsequent surgery, compensation for pain, mental agony and hardship, and litigation costs.
Contentions of the Opposite Parties
The Opposite Parties denied all allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service, contending that the complainant was advised to undergo a colonoscopy based on her symptoms and medical condition. They submitted that written consent was obtained from the complainant's daughter after explaining the risks involved, including bowel perforation.
They further argued that colon perforation is a known complication of colonoscopy and not necessarily the result of negligence. According to them, the perforation was promptly detected, an emergency surgery was immediately performed, and the complainant was discharged in stable condition after successful treatment. Relying on the opinion of the District Medical Officer's Expert Medical Panel, they maintained that no medical negligence was established and sought dismissal of the complaint.
Observations and Decision
The Commission observed that the colonoscopy was a planned and elective procedure, yet the doctor failed to obtain the complainant's informed consent and instead obtained consent only from her daughter, despite there being no evidence that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent. It held that informed consent is not a mere formality and that a patient undergoing an elective procedure must be informed of its nature, purpose, risks, alternatives and possible complications before consenting.
The Commission further found that the doctor failed to obtain an adequate medical history, conduct an informed assessment of the complainant's individual risk factors, properly inform her of the risks associated with the procedure, maintain adequate procedure records, and provide appropriate post-procedure monitoring after perforation was suspected. It held that these cumulative lapses fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent medical practitioner and constituted medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission also held the hospital vicariously liable for these deficiencies.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint, exonerated Opposite Parties 3 and 5 from liability, and held the Director of Mother Hospital, its Medical Superintendent and the doctor who advised and performed the colonoscopy jointly and severally liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service.
The Commission directed them to refund ₹28,790 towards the medical expenses incurred for the colonoscopy and corrective surgery, pay ₹50,000 as compensation for pain, suffering and mental agony, and ₹25,000 towards litigation costs, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until realisation.
Case Title: CC/210/12
Case Title: Sarojini v. Director, Mother Hospital, Thrissur & Ors.
