Uttarakhand Consumer Court Holds Max Hospital Guilty

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the title “Doctor” is not the exclusive property of MBBS doctors. The Court held that the NMC Act does not confer any statutory monopoly over the “Dr” prefix and that qualified physiotherapists and occupational therapists can also use it. The Court dismissed petitions filed by IMA challenging the NCAHP Act and allied health curriculum.

The NCDRC has clarified an important legal principle in a medical negligence case from Maharashtra, holding that “no cure is not negligence” and that failure of treatment alone cannot be equated with medical negligence. In a case alleging post injection radial nerve palsy, the Commission found no proof of negligent treatment and dismissed the complaint against the doctor.

The Supreme Court is examining whether compensation for medical negligence can be recovered from a doctor’s estate through legal heirs after the doctor’s death, even when the complainant has also died. The case raises crucial questions about survivability of civil liability under consumer law and could reshape medical negligence jurisprudence in India.

The Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable after a patient died following a Dobutamine Stress Echo test conducted without proven informed consent. This landmark 2025 judgment explains how lack of informed consent amounts to medical negligence and why hospitals are vicariously liable for doctors’ actions.