38.6c New Delhi, India, Sunday, February 22, 2026
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Max Hospital and Doctor Held Liable for Medical Negligence in Patient’s Death by Uttarakhand Consumer Commission [Read Order]

By Samriddhi Ojha      27 November, 2025 12:51 PM      0 Comments
Max Hospital and Doctor Held Liable for Medical Negligence in Patients Death by Uttarakhand Consumer Commission

Uttarakhand: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, has held Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dehradun, and one of its doctors, Dr. Amit Rana, jointly and severally liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service, directing them to pay a total compensation of ₹10 lakh, along with litigation costs and interest, to the legal heirs of a patient who died after suffering a cardiac arrest during a diagnostic test. The judgment, pronounced on November 20, 2025, stemmed from a complaint filed by Sh. Sandeep Gupta regarding the treatment of his late mother, Smt. Shakuntala Devi.

The case centered around a Dobutamine Stress Echo (DSE) test performed on Smt. Shakuntala Devi on April 12, 2014, as part of a pre-operative cardiac evaluation for a planned surgery. The complainant alleged that during the procedure, his mother suffered a cardiac arrest and subsequently remained in a vegetative state until her death on May 13, 2014. The core allegation was that Dr. Amit Rana (Opposite Party No. 5) conducted the DSE test without properly explaining the associated risks, without obtaining valid consent, and without adequate monitoring—amounting to negligence. A general deficiency in service was also alleged against the hospital.

After reviewing the records, the Commission found a critical lapse on the part of the hospital and the doctor who conducted the test. The judgment noted, “Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 5 have not produced any material to establish that consent was obtained from the patient or her attendants prior to undertaking the DSE test. There is no specific consent form showing details of the nature of the procedure, its risks, complications, nor is there any record demonstrating that such information was ever explained to the patient or her attendants. The requirement of obtaining consent prior to conducting the DSE test was necessary…” The Commission unequivocally held that “The absence of such consent amounts to deficiency in service and constitutes negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 5.”

Applying the principle of vicarious liability, the Commission held the hospital responsible for the negligence of its employed doctor. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & Ors. vs. Master Rishabh Sharma & Ors., the Commission reaffirmed that “It is well established that a hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of negligence committed by the doctors engaged or empaneled to provide medical care.” Consequently, it concluded, “In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party No. 1 – Hospital and opposite party No. 5 – Dr. Amit Rana be held liable, jointly or severally, for medical negligence and deficiency in service. We find that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 5 failed to exercise the reasonable duty of care expected from medical professionals.”

The Commission directed Max Super Speciality Hospital (Opposite Party No. 1) to pay ₹10 lakh to the complainant and the proforma opposite parties (remaining legal heirs) in equal proportion. This amount includes medical expenses of ₹5,84,201.67. Additionally, the hospital was ordered to pay ₹50,000 towards litigation expenses, along with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of the complaint (July 22, 2014) until the date of actual payment. The complaint was partly allowed, while Dr. A.K. Singh, Dr. Preeti Sharma, and Dr. Punish Sadana (Opposite Party Nos. 2, 3, and 4) were exonerated from liability due to lack of evidence indicating independent negligence on their part.

Case Details

  • Case No.: SC/5/CC/12/2014
  • Name of Case: Sh. Sandeep Gupta vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital & Others
  • Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani (President), Mr. C.M. Singh (Member)
  • Date of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025
  • Advocate for Complainant: Sh. Avnit Rastogi
  • Advocate for Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 5: Sh. S.K. Agarwal
  • Advocate for Proforma Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 10: Sh. Kawaljeet Singh

[Read Order]



Share this article:

About:

Samriddhi is a legal scholar currently pursuing her LL.M. in Constitutional Law at the National Law ...Read more



Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Max Hospital and Doctor Held Liable for Medical Negligence in Patient’s Death by Uttarakhand Consumer Commission [Read Order] Max Hospital and Doctor Held Liable for Medical Negligence in Patient’s Death by Uttarakhand Consumer Commission [Read Order]

Uttarakhand Consumer Commission holds Max Hospital and Dr. Amit Rana liable for medical negligence; orders ₹10 lakh compensation with interest and costs.

TRENDING NEWS

us-sc-strikes-down-trumps-global-tariffs-rules-ieepa-does-not-authorize-president-to-impose-duties
Trending International
US SC Strikes Down Trump’s Global Tariffs, Rules IEEPA Does Not Authorize President to Impose Duties [Read Order]

US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs, ruling that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose import duties.

21 February, 2026 02:45 PM
kerala-hc-issues-notice-to-cbfc-over-certification-of-the-kerala-story-2-goes-beyond
Trending Judiciary
Kerala HC Issues Notice to CBFC Over Certification of ‘The Kerala Story 2 – Goes Beyond’

Kerala High Court issues notice to CBFC over certification of The Kerala Story 2, questions safeguards under Cinematograph Act; release not stayed.

21 February, 2026 02:50 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-declines-to-entertain-plea-over-alleged-anti-muslim-remarks-by-assam-cm-says-approach-hc
Trending Judiciary
SC Declines to Entertain Plea Over Alleged Anti-Muslim Remarks by Assam CM, Says Approach HC

Supreme Court asks petitioners to approach Gauhati High Court over alleged hate speech by Assam CM, declines plea for FIRs and SIT probe.

16 February, 2026 02:52 PM
can-live-in-partner-be-prosecuted-under-section-498a-ipc-sc-to-decide-scope-of-husband-in-cruelty-law
Trending Judiciary
Can Live-In Partner Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC? SC To Decide Scope Of ‘Husband’ In Cruelty Law [Read Order]

Supreme Court to decide if a man in a live-in relationship can be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty. Case to impact scope of “husband”.

16 February, 2026 03:33 PM
sc-sets-aside-anticipatory-bail-granted-to-absconding-murder-accused-in-madhya-pradesh-political-rivalry-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Sets Aside Anticipatory Bail Granted To Absconding Murder Accused In Madhya Pradesh Political Rivalry Case [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court sets aside anticipatory bail to absconding murder accused in MP political rivalry case, calls HC order perverse and unjustified.

16 February, 2026 03:59 PM
places-of-worship-act-does-not-protect-illegal-encroachments-on-government-land-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
Places of Worship Act Does Not Protect Illegal Encroachments on Government Land: Madras HC [Read Order]

Madras High Court rules that Places of Worship Act, 1991 does not protect temples built on encroached government land; eviction upheld in Ramanathapuram case.

16 February, 2026 04:18 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email