Delhi consumer court orders Metro Hospital to pay ₹15 lakh for failing to arrange life support ambulance for patient's transfer

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held that a hospital's duty of care does not end with providing treatment within its premises but extends to ensuring the safe transfer of critically ill patients to other medical facilities [Suresh Kumar Vs Metro Hospital].

A Bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Judicial Member) directed Metro Hospital & Heart Institute to pay ₹15 lakh in compensation and ₹50,000 in litigation costs for failing to arrange a life-support ambulance and medical supervision for a patient who had suffered a stroke.

The Commission observed that hospitals, particularly those charging substantial fees, cannot treat emergency transportation as an optional service.

"The duty of a hospital does not come to an end merely upon providing consultation or administering treatment within its premises. Rather, such duty necessarily encompasses taking reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the safety, continuity of care and well-being of the patient, including during the process of transferring the patient to another medical facility, wherever such transfer becomes necessary," the Commission said.

The case arose from a complaint filed by Suresh Kumar, who had undergone a dual heart valve replacement procedure at AIIMS in 2008.

On November 13, 2013, Kumar developed severe breathing difficulties and was admitted to Metro Hospital, where doctors diagnosed an obstruction in his artificial aortic valve.

He was administered streptokinase, a medication used to dissolve blood clots. However, he subsequently suffered a stroke that affected his speech and movement.

According to the complaint, the hospital advised that Kumar be transferred to another medical facility for neurological treatment but failed to provide an appropriately equipped ambulance or an accompanying doctor.

His family alleged that nearly five hours were lost before they independently arranged transportation to Vimhans Hospital.

The family subsequently approached the Consumer Commission, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. They sought compensation for the patient's deteriorating condition, loss of earnings and other expenses.

Metro Hospital denied negligence and maintained that the treatment administered was consistent with established medical protocols. It submitted that the patient had developed a known complication of thrombolytic therapy and that the family had declined the option of transferring him to its Noida facility.

The Commission examined expert opinions from GB Pant Hospital, the Delhi Medical Council and the Medical Council of India.

All three supported the medical treatment administered to the patient. The Commission consequently found no medical negligence attributable to the treating doctor, Dr Samanjoy Mukharjee.

However, it distinguished the medical treatment from the hospital's subsequent failure to arrange emergency transportation.

The Commission found that the hospital had neither provided the necessary ambulance and medical supervision nor offered a satisfactory explanation for its failure to do so.

"The provision of basic emergency facilities, including an appropriately equipped ambulance and qualified medical personnel for patient transfer, cannot be treated as an optional or dispensable service," it observed.

It further held that patients and their families could not be expected to independently arrange essential medical infrastructure during an emergency.

"The failure to arrange for an ambulance and appropriate medical supervision during the transportation of a critical patient is not a mere procedural lapse or an inconsequential administrative omission," the Commission said.

Holding that the hospital's conduct constituted a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Commission directed it to pay ₹15 lakhs as compensation within two months, by January 6, 2027.

The Commission also took note of the fact that the litigation had continued for more than a decade and imposed costs of ₹50,000, bringing the total payable amount to ₹15.5 lakhs.

Failure to pay the amount within the deadline given in the order would attract interest at 9 per cent per annum on the entire amount from the date of filing of the complaint until the payment of the compensation, the Commission added.

Advocate Charu Sachdeva appeared for the complainant.

Advocate Pradeep Kar appeared for Metro Hospital.

[Read Judgment]