A late-night emergency at a leading Delhi heart facility turned into a prolonged legal battle when the family of a cardiac patient alleged that doctors delayed a life-saving angioplasty, causing his death.

The patient was admitted with acute chest pain and underwent an angiography the next day. The test revealed significant double-vessel blockage—serious enough, according to the family, to demand immediate intervention. Yet angioplasty was performed only on the fourth day of admission. During the procedure a rare arterial complication occurred, and despite intensive care the patient suffered repeated arrhythmias and died within hours.

The family accused the hospital of dragging its feet for commercial gain and performing an incomplete procedure, even tossing in sensational claims of organ removal. They sought a multi-crore compensation, pointing to a disciplinary warning once issued by a state medical council and a police case registered soon after the death.

The hospital countered that the patient had already crossed the “golden window” of a heart attack by the time he arrived, making immediate angioplasty medically unsuitable. Consent for the invasive procedure, they said, was fragmented and delayed, with different relatives signing different forms over several days. They also highlighted that the treatment was under a government health-scheme package, leaving no financial incentive to prolong admission. Independent expert bodies, including the apex medical regulator, had reviewed the case and found no negligence, and a criminal court had already dropped charges.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission agreed with the hospital. Citing Supreme Court precedents on medical negligence, it held that a poor outcome is not proof of fault and that angiography consent cannot substitute for separate consent for angioplasty. Recognised risks such as arterial dissection and post-procedure cardiac arrests, the Commission noted, cannot be treated as negligence when the treatment plan is medically reasoned and documented.

With the regulatory authority’s exoneration and detailed hospital records in its favour, the Commission dismissed the complaint, stressing that doctors cannot be faulted merely because a tragedy occurs.

IML Insight

This case underscores a critical lesson for healthcare providers—when consent is carefully recorded and clinical decisions are documented, courts are reluctant to second-guess medical judgment, even when outcomes are fatal. Clear paperwork, not hindsight, decides liability.

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 24th July, 2025.