The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission passed an order on October 21, 2026, directing a doctor to pay Rs. 9 lakh in compensation to a woman who allegedly suffered a miscarriage in March 2024 due to medical negligence.
The total amount awarded was ₹10.7 lakh, comprising ₹9 lakh in compensation, ₹1.6 lakh towards medical expenses and ₹10,000 in legal costs. The patient had reportedly sought ₹21.8 lakh in compensation.
The commission found that the doctor couldn’t provide any documentary evidence in her defence and was held responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The complaint was heard by President Gudla Tanuja and members Varri Krishna Murthy and Rahimunnisa Begum.
The October order stated, “The opposite party (the doctor) is cautioned not to resort to unfair methodology towards expectant mothers, as their life is ‘one body with twin lives’ and will have an impact not only on the personal life of the patient who is the prospective mother, but on their family, as well as on the entire social fabric of society. The want of a child is not only for biological reasons but for the sustenance of the family in furtherance; the loss of a legal heir in today’s context is a matter of immediate concern for the parents.”
Many women dream of being a mother and having a baby; for some, having a baby is more than just having the child. It is also about finding closeness and acceptance in their own family.
The commission said that the woman’s dream of having a child was shattered, and she might also face consequences from her in-laws for not delivering their heir.
The commission said that the woman’s loss couldn’t be compensated with money; however, the doctor must provide the woman with monetary compensation of a significant amount.
The commission also cautioned hospitals to remain vigilant about their responsibilities towards patients, observing that negligence could have serious consequences for patients and the reputation of medical institutions. It warned that such incidents could leave a permanent “blood mark” on the record of the medical fraternity.
According to reports by EndorphinMD, the 32-year-old working patient visited a Visakhapatnam hospital in February 2024. The doctor confirmed the pregnancy at 8 weeks and recorded the data in the patient's antenatal booklet. Because of the patient's age and health, the doctor labeled it a "precious pregnancy" and advised bed rest, regular meals, and less work stress.
She was admitted to the hospital for the first time at 17 weeks when she experienced vaginal spotting. The gynecologist personally examined her, and a follow-up scan the next day showed a stabilized blood clot on February 22, 2024. However, the doctor claimed the patient grew unhappy with the ward and discharged herself against medical advice on the third day.
However, she was admitted to the hospital again a week later on March 1, 2024, with a diagnosis of threatened miscarriage.
According to the doctor's defence, the patient had previously been advised to return for a follow-up within 48 hours after her first discharge but did not do so. The doctor also alleged that the patient repeatedly sat upright despite being advised to lie in the left lateral position. These claims formed part of the doctor's defence and were not supported by documentary evidence submitted by her.
On March 2, 2024, the doctor ordered a catheter and instructed the patient to rest in the left lateral position. The gynecologist claimed that the patient continuously sat up for comfort, ignoring pleas from both her husband and mother.
The patient alleged that on March 9, 2024, at 12:30 pm, she had a miscarriage, even after paying 1.60 lakh for treatment, because of the doctor’s negligence.
The woman said that she did not receive any reply from the doctor when she had sent her a legal notice.
According to the reports, the gynecologist filed no documents or sheets. The doctor did not have any documents to support her defence.
The patient’s side submitted seven documents, including the woman’s record book, hospital prescriptions, and bills.
According to EndorphinMD's examination of the order, these seven documents also included the hospital's test reports. Neither side examined a witness, and no independent medical expert opinion was submitted.
The commission observed that the doctor failed to submit any documents such as the patient’s inpatient case sheets, admission-to-discharge record forms, any self-discharge records, or any document that could prove that the patient did not follow the doctor’s medical advice.
According to the reports, the doctor accepted the basic fault but did not accept that she was negligent towards the pregnant woman.
The commission questioned why the doctor had failed to produce important medical records that were expected to be in her possession. These included the patient's hospital records, documents related to her alleged discharge against medical advice, and evidence to support the doctor's claim that the patient had not followed medical instructions. The commission observed that the doctor could not simply deny the allegations without providing documents to support her defence.
The commission did not take into account any kind of expert opinion and said that the patient’s records were enough.
The commission also said that the doctor might have suppressed material facts because the relevant case sheet was not produced. It described the absence of the document as raising a “suspicion of suppression of material facts.”
According to the reports, the commission also alleged that the doctor left the patient with junior staff on the night when the patient miscarried, and the case sheet that could show who was on duty that night was never filed.
The commission also noted that the treating doctor had left the patient in the hands of hospital staff on the night of the miscarriage. The case sheet that could have established who was called to attend to the patient and when was not produced.
The commission ordered the doctor to pay ₹10.7 lakh in total, comprising ₹9 lakh in compensation, ₹1.6 lakh towards the patient's medical bills and ₹10,000 in legal costs.
The doctor must clear this awarded amount within a month of receiving the order. If she fails to meet this deadline, a 9% annual interest rate will apply to ₹10.6 lakh of the debt until she pays it in full.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)
