The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), Delhi, has overturned a major 1994 child-death medical negligence ruling against the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow, giving complete relief to the treating doctors.
The Commission in its order pronounced on November 27, 2025 held that there was no proof of medical negligence, but found the hospital responsible for poor documentation and missing medical records.
A Bench of Justice AP Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) partly allowed the appeal filed by SGPGI. It ruled that while the complainant could not show any lapse in the medical treatment provided to his son, the institute had failed in its basic duty to keep proper records — an administrative lapse for which it must compensate the family.
The case concerned the treatment of the complainant’s 5-year-old son, who was admitted to SGPGI in November 1992 with suspected typhoid. Tests, including a bone marrow examination done on December 2, 1992, confirmed that he had Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL), a type of blood cancer. The child began chemotherapy on December 18, 1992.
The complainant later alleged that even after the diagnosis, the child was kept in the general ward under a paediatrician instead of being shifted to the Immunology Department.
When the cancer relapsed, the boy was admitted again to the Immunology Department in May 1994 and treated by doctors from the Paediatrics and Immunology Department. He was eventually shifted from a private room to an isolation ward for closer monitoring. The child developed a sudden drop in blood pressure and died on May 31, 1994, as per the Commission’s observation.
The family raised several serious concerns about the treatment their child received at SGPGI. First, they pointed to two different cause-of-death certificates issued by the hospital. One certificate mentioned “septic shock” as the cause of death, while the other listed “leukaemia,” creating confusion and raising doubts about the accuracy of the medical records.
The complainant also alleged that the child did not receive proper treatment at various stages of his illness. According to the family, the hospital failed to take their consent for certain procedures and did not keep them informed adequately about the child’s condition or the course of treatment being followed.
Another concern raised by the family was the hospital’s failure to provide complete medical records. They claimed that important documents, including those from the child’s first admission in 1992, were missing. This lack of proper documentation, they argued, made it difficult to understand what treatment was given and whether the correct procedures were followed.
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Commission had earlier accepted these allegations, held the doctors negligent, and ordered compensation of Rs 49 lakh.
SGPGI and the treating doctors challenged the State Commission’s order. After reviewing the case, the NCDRC concluded that there was no evidence to support the charge of medical negligence.
The NCDRC observed that the child’s illness was diagnosed in a timely and appropriate manner. Leukemia was identified quickly in 1992, and chemotherapy was started without any delay, showing that the medical team acted promptly after confirming the diagnosis.
The Commission further noted that the treatment provided to the child followed accepted medical standards. The doctors consulted the Immunology Department throughout the process, and the care given was in line with the protocols available at the time.
Another important finding was that SGPGI did not have a Haematology Department in 1992. Because of this, the child could not have been treated by haematologists, as the complainant had argued. The NCDRC said this claim had no basis.
As per the order, the Commission also pointed out that shifting the child to the isolation ward was a medically justified decision. The move was done to allow closer monitoring and better observation of the child’s condition, and therefore could not be considered negligence.
Finally, the NCDRC criticised the State Commission for relying on theoretical information taken from internet sources that had never been placed on record. Since this material was not shared with SGPGI, the hospital had no opportunity to review or respond to it. The NCDRC held that this was a violation of natural justice.
The Commission clearly stated that without expert medical opinion or proper evidence, a finding of negligence could not be sustained.
However, the NCDRC did find fault with SGPGI for not maintaining proper records, especially documents from the child’s first admission in 1992. Missing consent forms and incomplete files caused confusion and hardship for the family, the Commission said. Such administrative lapses amounted to “deficiency in service,” noted the Commission, directing the hospital to pay Rs 5 lakhs for deficient record-keeping and Rs 1 lakh towards litigation costs.
