A fever, a quick injection, and a life lost. What looked like a routine illness ended in tragedy when a woman died within hours of visiting a small neighbourhood clinic. Her husband alleged that the so-called “doctor” who treated her was not even qualified to practise medicine.

According to the complaint, the woman was taken to a local clinic with fever and was given an injection and medicines. Her condition worsened rapidly, but the practitioner reassured the family that she would recover. By evening he personally accompanied them to a government health centre, where she was admitted—and where she died the same day. The husband accused the practitioner of unauthorised medical practice and claimed that the injection caused her death.

The man at the centre of the allegation denied everything. He insisted he was not a doctor, did not own a clinic, and had never treated the patient. He claimed the complaint was a vendetta linked to an unpaid loan, and argued that the woman died of gastroenteritis, not any injection.

The district consumer forum sifted through evidence that included hospital admission records showing the practitioner had brought the patient for treatment, photographs and local certificates proving that he had been running a clinic for years without qualifications. Rejecting the financial-dispute defence, the forum concluded that he had indeed administered treatment and was practising medicine illegally, and ordered payment of two lakh rupees in compensation.

The state commission upheld the order, stressing that practising medicine without registration is itself negligence. On further challenge, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission agreed. Noting that its power to re-examine facts is limited, it affirmed the findings of both lower forums: unauthorised practice plus harmful treatment equals medical negligence, regardless of whether the injection directly caused the death.

IML Insight

This case is a stark reminder that unqualified treatment is negligence per se. Consumer forums will not entertain excuses of personal rivalry or financial disputes when records prove that a person masqueraded as a medical practitioner. For patients and families, the lesson is equally clear—verify credentials before accepting treatment, no matter how familiar or convenient the clinic appears.

Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 13th February, 2025.