The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Mohali-based Ivy Hospital and three of its doctors guilty of medical negligence in the death of a 19-year-old student and ordered them to pay Rs 45 lakh as compensation to her mother.
The Commission, however, found no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of Government Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector 16, (GMSH-16) Chandigarh.
The order came on an appeal filed by Kavita, the mother of Gurpreet Kaur, who died in December 2021.
According to the complaint, on December 19, 2021, Gurpreet Kaur was taken to GMSH-16 by her parents after she had been suffering from diarrhoea for three days, along with cough and slurred speech for about four days. Kavita alleged that after a clinical examination, doctors at the hospital prescribed medicines without making any diagnosis or advising blood tests or other investigations, and did not admit the patient despite her blood pressure being recorded at 100/60.
She alleged that at around 6.57 pm, doctors prescribed a few medicines and subsequently discharged Gurpreet at 8.10 pm, advising medication and follow-up in the medical OPD.
Kavita stated that following this, the family contacted Ivy Hospital in Mohali and took Gurpreet there for treatment. She alleged that doctors at Ivy Hospital were responsible for her daughter’s death due to grossly rash and negligent acts.
According to the complaint, from 8 pm on December 21, 2021, the family was allegedly prevented from meeting Gurpreet and was not given updates about her health, reflecting a lack of transparency.
Story continues below this ad
Kavita further alleged that the entire treatment at Ivy Hospital was marked by serious lapses, including failure to review prior medications, consider alternative diagnoses, ensure proper fluid intake, monitor discharge levels or arrange timely blood and platelet transfusions. She alleged that even though laboratory reports showed high neutrophils and low lymphocytes indicating bacterial infection (septicemia), the hospital treated her for dengue based solely on the NS1 test, ignoring recommendations for further testing.
The complainant also alleged that inappropriate intravenous transfusions worsened Gurpreet’s condition, caused liver damage and contributed to her death.
Responding to the allegations, GMSH-16 submitted that Gurpreet, aged 19, had visited its Emergency Department with a history of diarrhoea. The hospital said she was advised to follow up in the medical OPD, but she never returned to GMSH-16 for further treatment, thereby denying any medical negligence.
Meanwhile, Ivy Hospital and its doctors failed to file a written reply within the stipulated period of 45 days, following which the District Consumer Commission struck off their defence through an order dated September 17, 2024.
Story continues below this ad
Despite this, the District Commission dismissed Kavita’s complaint after hearing arguments and examining the documents on record.
Kavita then filed an appeal before the State Consumer Commission, arguing through her counsel Advocate Deepak Aggarwal that the District Commission’s order was “totally unreasoned, biased and cryptic”, and that it had failed to consider the allegations and evidence placed on record. The appeal stated that Gurpreet had died due to Dengue Shock Syndrome resulting from medical negligence.
In its reply before the State Commission, GMSH-16 argued that the complaint involved suppression of material facts, speculative allegations and legally impermissible arguments, and sought dismissal of the appeal.
Ivy Hospital and its doctors, in their reply to the appeal, contended that they had provided timely, comprehensive and evidence-based medical care to Gurpreet, who had been critically ill for several days before admission with severe dehydration, metabolic derangements, dengue hemorrhagic shock syndrome, severe sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction. They said the patient was immediately evaluated, investigated and shifted to the ICU after obtaining informed written consent, and was thereafter treated by a multidisciplinary team in accordance with standard medical protocols. The hospital further argued that her deterioration and death were due to the natural progression of severe dengue with sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction, compounded by delayed presentation and refusal of certain medical interventions by the family.
Story continues below this ad
A bench comprising Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Rajesh K Arya (Member), while examining the role of GMSH-16, held that the hospital’s emergency record did not show persistent hemodynamic instability warranting further investigations such as ECG, ultrasound or specialist referral at that stage.
The panel observed that Gurpreet had been advised follow-up treatment in the medical OPD but did not return to the hospital, thereby interrupting continuity of care. In the absence of expert medical evidence proving deviation from accepted medical practice, the allegations against GMSH-16 remained unsubstantiated, it said.
However, the commission held Ivy Hospital and its doctors responsible for medical negligence. It noted that delayed detection of a coiled central line and failure to escalate care or refer the patient to a tertiary centre despite repeated requests by the parents amounted to a serious departure from accepted medical standards and contributed to the patient’s deterioration.
The state consumer commission said the case clearly amounted to “medical negligence and breach of duty of care”.
Story continues below this ad
“…The death of her 19 year-old daughter is not merely the loss of a patient; it is the extinguishing of a young life filled with promise, aspirations and the potential to contribute meaningfully to her family and society. At such a tender age, she stood at the threshold of adulthood with her education, career and independent future unfolding ahead of her…The complainant has suffered a void that can never be filled. Her home has been rendered silent where once there was youthful energy and hope. The psychological trauma of losing a child due to preventable medical lapses compounds their grief with a sense of injustice. In such circumstances, awarding fair and substantial compensation is not merely a financial exercise but an affirmation of accountability and the value the legal system places on human life”, the commission observed.
It directed Ivy Hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation, while Dr Gurpreet Singh Babra was ordered to pay Rs 10 lakh, and Dr Chetan Goel and Dr Rajiv Dhunna were directed to pay Rs 25 lakh (Rs 12.5 lakh each) to the complainant.
Additionally, the commission directed the hospital and the doctors to jointly and severally pay Rs 40,000 as litigation costs.
