Skip to main content

Consumer Court Delhi awards Rs. 20 Lacs to Women who suffered permanent loss to her fallopian tube due to medical negligence

FACTS AND BACKGROUND 

The case involves medical negligence leading to the delayed diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy, resulting in the removal of the complainant's fallopian tube and permanent infertility. The judgment was delivered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, on December 18, 2025.

 Parties Involved

 Complainant:   40-year-old woman at the time of reporting).

 Opposite Party 1 (OP1): The treating doctor at the nursing home.

 Opposite Party 2 (OP2): A private nursing home in Central Delhi.



Chronology of Events

July 2020: Complainant tested positive for pregnancy at home and visited the nursing home for confirmation. The treating doctor took charge of her antenatal care. She was identified as a high-risk patient. 

Over the next nearly one month (and persisting for about two months total), Complainant repeatedly complained of persistent abdominal pain.

The doctor prescribed medicines and injections "blindly" without conducting proper investigations (e.g., no ultrasound or tests to rule out complications like ectopic pregnancy).

September 2020 (approximately two months later): The pain became unbearable. Complainant sought treatment at a different hospital, where doctors diagnosed an ectopic pregnancy with a dead embryo and extensive internal damage.

Emergency surgery was performed: Her fallopian tube was removed to save her life. She was informed that due to the extensive damage, she would never be able to conceive naturally again (permanent infertility).

OBSERVATIONS OF COURT 

The Commission held the doctor and nursing home liable for deficiency in service and medical negligence on account of the following observations: - 

The doctor "failed to investigate the problem with due diligence despite her known pregnancy and high-risk patient history."

Medicines were prescribed "blindly without ruling out complications."

This "casual approach in a high-risk pregnancy amounts to negligence."

Timely detection of the ectopic pregnancy could have prevented the rupture, extensive damage, tube removal, and permanent infertility. An ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening if it ruptures, as it did here due to the delay.

COMPENSATION 

The nursing home (OP2) was directed to pay ₹20 lakh as lump-sum compensation to Complainant for:

 Physical harm (loss of fallopian tube)

 Permanent infertility

 Mental agony and suffering

 The nursing home can recover the amount from the doctor (OP1) as per law.

 No separate breakdown of the ₹20 lakh or additional litigation costs mentioned in reports.

CONCLUSION 

This ruling underscores the accountability of healthcare providers in reproductive health cases, particularly emphasizing the need for thorough investigations in pregnancies with pain symptoms to avoid devastating outcomes like irreversible infertility. The case aligns with trends in Indian consumer forums awarding substantial compensation for negligence impacting fertility.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MARRIAGE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN DELHI

 Hello friends today we shall talk about the procedure for registration of marriage in Delhi.   ELIGIBILITY The marriage must have been solemnized either under the Hindu Marriage Act or under the Special Marriage Act, The Groom must have attained the minimum age of 21 years. The bride must be of the age of 18 years at least.   DOCUMENTS REQUIRED Photo ID proofs of both the parties like Aadhar card / PAN card / Voter card Date of birth proofs of both parties like 10 th certificate, etc. Permanent address proof must be there . Marriage photographs and Invitation Card. Passport Size Photographs of both parties. 2 witness in case marriage registered under Hindu Marriage Act or 3 witnesses in case it is registered under the Special Marriage Act along with their respective proofs like PAN CARD/ AADHAR CARD etc. An affidavit from both parties certifying the date of their marriage and more specifically stating that the marriage has not been performed between pers...
1 comment
Read more

BENGALURU CONSUMER COURT IMPOSES PENALTY ON FLIPKART

RECENTLY BENGALURU DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DIRECTED ONLINE MERCHANT FLIPKART TO REFUND AN ANOUNT OF RS. 13,999/- ALONGWITH COMPENSATION OF RS. 10,000/- TO A 80-YEAR OLD FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY. BRIEF FACTS An 80 -Year Old Consumer ordered a treadmill on the online site of Opposite Party Flipkart. In compliance the treadmill was delivered to the consumer. At the time of installation of the product, it was revealed by the technician that the treadmill is faulty. On coming to know that the consumer returned the product to Flipkart and sought replacement. Initially Flipkart failed to replace the product but in some time, the replaced product was delivered to consumer, however, despite requests they failed to send the technician. When consumer tried to fix the same on its own, it was found that the product was of some other company. In other words, it was not the same product which has been initially ordered by the consumer. With no resolution, the consumer was left with no other option bu...
Post a Comment
Read more

KERALA HIGH COURT BARS ENTRY OF 10 YEAR GIRL FROM ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE

RECENTLY KERALA HIGH COURT DISMISSED WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE  226 OF CONSTITUTION FILED BY FATHER ON BEHALF OF HIS 10- YEAR OLD GIRL FOR SEEKING AN ORDER TO ENTER SABARIMALA TEMPLE. THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF REVIEW PENDING ON THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE LARGER BENCH OF THE APEX COURT. BRIEF FACTS 10 year old girl filed a writ petition before the Kerala HIgh Court seeking relief of mandamus seeking directions to Travancore Devaswom Board to allow her to offer pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple without taking into account the restrictions of age since she has not attained puberty or in the alternative to allow the request of the minor on sympathetic grounds. It is contended by the Petitioner that they are planning to visit the temple since long and it has been delayed due to onset of Covid earlier. Now, the family is under distress and also the father of Petitioner is not in good health. Hence, they have applied the same online but since in the meanwhile the age of Petit...
Post a Comment
Read more