38.6c New Delhi, India, Saturday, January 10, 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

indias-business-families-seek-regulatory-recognition-of-daughters-in-law-as-relatives-under-sebi-takeover-norms
Trending Business
India’s Business Families Seek Regulatory Recognition of Daughters-in-Law as ‘Relatives’ Under SEBI Takeover Norms

Indian business families urge SEBI to recognise daughters-in-law as relatives under takeover norms, citing succession planning, trusts, gender equality and compliance risks.

09 January, 2026 05:58 PM
sc-bail-for-accused-added-under-section-319-crpc-requires-strong-and-cogent-evidence-not-mere-probability-of-complicity
Trending Judiciary
SC: Bail for Accused Added Under Section 319 CrPC Requires Strong and Cogent Evidence, Not Mere Probability of Complicity [Read Order]

Supreme Court rules that bail for accused added under Section 319 CrPC requires strong and cogent evidence, not mere probability of complicity.

09 January, 2026 06:04 PM

TOP STORIES

regulating-hate-restricting-speech-an-analysis-of-the-karnataka-hate-speech-and-hate-crimes-bill-2025
Trending Executive
Regulating Hate, Restricting Speech ? An Analysis Of The Karnataka Hate Speech And Hate Crimes Bill, 2025

Analysis of Karnataka’s Hate Speech Bill, 2025, examining vague definitions, harsh penalties, executive powers, and its impact on free speech.

04 January, 2026 12:48 AM
if-memorial-for-stan-swamy-permitted-on-private-land-no-bar-for-stupa-commemorating-victory-over-colonial-forces-madras-hc
Trending Judiciary
If Memorial for Stan Swamy Permitted on Private Land, No Bar for Stupa Commemorating Victory Over Colonial Forces: Madras HC [Read Order]

Madras High Court held that no government permission is needed to erect a memorial stupa on private patta land, citing the Stan Swamy memorial precedent.

05 January, 2026 05:35 PM
sc-denies-bail-to-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-in-2020-delhi-riots-conspiracy-case-grants-bail-to-five-others
Trending Judiciary
SC Denies Bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam in 2020 Delhi Riots Conspiracy Case; Grants Bail to Five Others

Supreme Court denies bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, while granting bail to five co-accused.

05 January, 2026 05:55 PM
allahabad-hc-holds-commercial-division-of-high-court-as-proper-forum-for-enforcement-of-domestic-awards-in-international-commercial-arbitration
Trending Judiciary
Allahabad HC holds Commercial Division of High Court as proper forum for enforcement of domestic awards in international commercial arbitration [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court rules that domestic arbitral awards in international commercial arbitration seated in India must be enforced before the High Court’s Commercial Division.

05 January, 2026 06:11 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email