Medical negligence case where a Foreign Medical Graduate doctor was held guilty for delayed diagnosis, misrepresentation of qualification and misuse of MD suffix, leading to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and tubectomy. The consumer court awarded 20 lakh compensation for permanent reproductive harm and mental trauma to the patient.
Table of contents [Show]
A recent judgment by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, has brought to light a deeply troubling case in which a woman lost her chance of future motherhood due to a combination of medical negligence, delayed diagnosis, and professional misrepresentation by the treating doctor. The case, decided in Samreen vs Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill, is not merely about a wrong clinical decision, but about a sustained pattern of careless medical management in a high-risk patient that ultimately resulted in irreversible harm.
The complainant had a known high-risk obstetric history and approached the clinic multiple times between July and September 2020 with complaints of abdominal pain and bleeding. Despite these repeated visits, no meaningful investigations were conducted for a prolonged period. Even after a urine pregnancy test was found to be positive, no ultrasound or other confirmatory diagnostic test was ordered for nearly forty days. The treatment records showed that she was repeatedly given only symptomatic medicines, without any documented diagnosis or proper clinical reasoning.
Eventually, when her condition became critical, she was taken to another hospital, where she was diagnosed with a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and had to undergo emergency surgery. By that time, the damage had already become irreversible. One of her fallopian tubes had to be removed, permanently impairing her reproductive capacity and destroying her chances of future natural motherhood. The Commission observed that this tragic outcome was a direct consequence of the failure to diagnose and treat the ectopic pregnancy in time.
While examining the record, the Commission made strong observations about the manner in which medical care was provided. It noted that there was no proper clinical assessment, no consistent diagnosis recorded in the treatment sheets, no timely investigation, and no evidence of the level of caution expected from a doctor dealing with a high-risk pregnancy. The patient continued to be treated in a casual and negligent manner despite the presence of clear warning signs that should have prompted urgent evaluation. The Commission held that this conduct amounted to a serious breach of the duty of care.
During the proceedings, it emerged that the treating doctor had obtained her basic medical qualification from Armenia, making her a Foreign Medical Graduate. The Commission noted that she was registered in India only with an MBBS-equivalent qualification and not with any recognised postgraduate specialist degree. The court examined her registration status with the Delhi Medical Council and found that, under Indian law, she was authorised to practise only as a general medical graduate and not as a specialist. This background became important because the nature of treatment involved management of a high-risk pregnancy, an area requiring specialised training, skill, and experience, which the Commission found she did not possess.
In this context, the Commission also took note of the fact that the doctor was using the suffix “MD” with her name and was presenting herself as a gynaecologist, despite being registered only as an MBBS doctor in India. The judgment records that in some foreign countries, including Armenia, the primary medical degree is titled “MD”, but in India this is treated only as equivalent to MBBS and does not confer postgraduate or specialist status. The Commission held that using this suffix and projecting herself as a specialist amounted to professional misrepresentation and was contrary to medical ethics and regulatory rules.
The Commission relied on settled Supreme Court principles to hold that practising in a specialised field without possessing the required qualification amounts to negligence in itself. The law is clear that if a person treats patients in a branch of medicine for which they are not qualified, such conduct is negligence per se, even before examining the quality of treatment provided. In this case, the misrepresentation regarding qualifications made the doctor’s conduct even more serious.
The nursing home where the treatment was provided was also held liable. The Commission observed that patients approach hospitals relying on their reputation and the assumption that the institution has verified the credentials of its doctors. If a hospital allows a doctor to practise without ensuring proper qualifications, it cannot escape responsibility when harm is caused. The hospital was therefore held vicariously liable for the acts and omissions of the treating doctor.
After analysing the entire chain of events, the Commission concluded that the delayed diagnosis, absence of proper investigations, casual treatment of a high-risk patient, and lack of requisite qualifications together formed a clear and direct cause of the irreversible harm suffered by the complainant. The injury was not limited to physical damage alone, but extended to permanent loss of reproductive ability, loss of future motherhood, severe mental trauma, and a lasting impact on her quality of life.
Considering the gravity of the harm and its lifelong consequences, the Commission awarded compensation of twenty lakh rupees to the complainant. The amount was held to be fair and justified in view of the permanent and irreversible damage caused to her body, her mental well-being, and her future prospects in life.
This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that medical negligence is not confined to surgical mistakes or wrong prescriptions. It also includes failure to diagnose in time, failure to investigate properly, and failure to practise within the limits of one’s qualifications. It also highlights the serious dangers of misrepresentation of credentials in medical practice. The case sends a strong message that casual and incompetent handling of high-risk patients, especially in sensitive areas like pregnancy care, can permanently destroy lives and will attract strict legal consequences.
A liposuction death in Delhi has reached the High Court, exposing delays by medical regulators and raising serious questions about safety in cosmetic surgery. The court has directed the NMC to conclude the long pending inquiry within six months. The case highlights accountability gaps, emergency preparedness and standards of care in aesthetic practice.
A Madhya Pradesh Consumer Forum has ordered ₹11 lakh compensation after an Ayurvedic compounder allegedly administered a saline infusion mixed with Polybion, Aciloc and Dexona without tests, leading to the death of a 27 year old man in Khargone district in December 2014. The IV reportedly triggered sudden deterioration minutes after administration, with the patient collapsing soon after.
Supreme Court refused to cancel bail of a cardiologist accused of unnecessary angioplasties under PMJAY linked to two deaths. While allegations include fraud, lack of consent and inflated claims, the Court stressed that bail is not punishment. The case highlights rising criminal risk for doctors amid insurance driven healthcare and consent scrutiny in India.
