- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Lucknow Nursing Home Fined ₹30 Lakh by Consumer Commission for Medical Negligence
Lucknow Nursing Home Fined ₹30 Lakh by Consumer Commission for Medical Negligence
A Lucknow nursing home and a homoeopathic practitioner have been ordered by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to pay over ₹30 lakh in compensation to a man who lost his wife due to alleged medical negligence during childbirth.
Vinay Kumar Mishra's wife was admitted to Mankameshwar Nursing Home under the care of Dr Meena Pandey in January 2014. The couple welcomed a baby girl, but tragedy struck soon after. Mishra alleges Dr Pandey, despite holding only a homoeopathy degree, misrepresented herself as a qualified gynaecologist and prescribed allopathic medications to his wife. This, coupled with a lack of proper care, resulted in excessive bleeding and ultimately the mother's death.
The consumer panel, presided over by Rajendra Singh and Vikas Saxena, found compelling evidence of medical negligence and deficiency in service. Dr. Pandey's alleged actions, including misrepresenting her qualifications and prescribing medication outside her scope of practice, were deemed a clear violation of medical ethics. The nursing home was also faulted for failing to shift the patient to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) despite her deteriorating condition and the delayed arrangement of blood, crucial for treatment.
The Commission concluded that the nursing home and Dr. Pandey had failed to discharge their duties adequately. They were deemed negligent in not providing the necessary medical care as per established protocols. The panel further opined that the blood should have been readily available and the patient's attendant informed promptly about any additional medical requirements.
Mishra was awarded a compensation of over ₹30 lakh. This included ₹25 lakh for medical negligence and deficiency in service, ₹5 lakh for the mental pain and suffering he endured, and ₹20,000 to cover legal costs. Advocate Hermann Mishra represented him, while Advocate Ashok Kumar Rai represented the defendants - the nursing home and Dr Meena Pandey.
The nursing home and Dr Pandey denied the allegations, claiming the patient was treated by Dr Pandey's husband, a qualified MBBS doctor and co-owner of the facility, which failed to lessen their culpability before the Commission.
The Commission further highlighted the severity of the situation. The patient's death on the very next day of her admission to the nursing home and soon after the childbirth strongly suggested a complete lack of proper post-delivery care. It found the nursing home and Dr Pandey negligent in their duties, failing to provide the essential supportive medical care that established medical protocols dictate.