What began as routine pre-operative clearance at a super-speciality hospital ended in a prolonged vegetative state and eventual death — with the consumer forum drawing a sharp line between accepted medical risk and failure of legal duty.
The patient was admitted for neurological surgery planning when doctors advised a Dobutamine Stress Echo (DSE) test to assess cardiac fitness. Given her history of hypertension, obesity, and restricted mobility, the hospital maintained that the test was medically appropriate and in line with standard protocol.
During the procedure, however, the patient suffered cardiac arrest and was rushed to intensive care. She never regained consciousness and passed away weeks later.
Her family alleged that the hospital and treating doctors had failed to explain the nature and risks of the test, had not properly monitored drug infusion, and lacked adequate emergency preparedness. They also raised concerns about sharply inflated medical bills.
The hospital denied negligence, asserting that cardiac arrest was a known complication of DSE testing, that consent had been obtained, and that immediate emergency protocols had been followed.
The State Commission’s scrutiny centred on one crucial issue — consent.
On examining the medical records, the Commission found no documentary proof that informed consent had ever been taken for the DSE test. There was no signed consent form detailing risks, complications, or procedure explanation. Even the hospital’s own cardiologist acknowledged that consent was mandatory before conducting such a high-risk diagnostic test.
This absence, the Commission held, constituted a clear breach of duty.
While the cardiac arrest itself was recognised as a known medical risk, exposing a patient to that risk without informed consent transformed the event into actionable negligence. The hospital was held vicariously liable for the cardiologist’s conduct, while referring doctors were exonerated as they had not participated in the test.
Compensation of ₹10 lakh, along with interest and litigation costs, was awarded for medical expenses and the loss suffered by the family.
The ruling reaffirmed a fundamental principle of medical law: patients may consent to risk — but they must first be told what that risk is. Conducting procedures without informed consent strips medical professionals of legal protection, even where complications are medically recognised.
IML Insight
Modern medical practice is as much about documentation as it is about clinical judgment. Courts are increasingly treating informed consent as a non-negotiable legal safeguard — not a formality. Where consent records are missing or vague, even standard procedures can convert into negligence claims, exposing hospitals to vicarious liability regardless of clinical appropriateness.
Source : Order pronounced by Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 20th November, 2025.