Summary of this article
Delhi consumer commission ordered Metro Hospital to pay Rs 15 lakh compensation
Hospital failed to arrange a properly equipped ambulance and accompanying doctor
Commission found deficient patient transfer arrangements but no medical negligence
Hospital must also pay Rs 50,000 litigation costs, with interest for delayed compliance
A Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Metro Hospital & Heart Institute to pay Rs 15 lakh to a patient who suffered a stroke, after finding that the hospital failed to arrange a properly equipped ambulance and a doctor for his transfer to another facility.
The commission also ordered the hospital to pay Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs. It gave the hospital two months, until January 6, 2027, to comply. If it does not pay by then, the amount will carry interest at nine per cent a year from the date the complaint was filed, December 10, 2015, until payment.
The order, pronounced on November 6, concerns Suresh Kumar, who had undergone a dual heart valve replacement at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in 2008. He was admitted to Metro Hospital on November 13, 2013, after developing acute breathing difficulty. Tests showed an obstruction in his artificial aortic valve.
2 November 2026
Get the latest issue of Outlook Money
Family Said Transfer Arrangements Took Nearly Five Hours
Kumar was treated with streptokinase, a clot-dissolving medicine. He later suffered a stroke that affected his speech and movement. The hospital advised shifting him for neurological treatment, according to the complaint filed by his wife on his behalf, according to a recent report by The New Indian Express.
His family alleged they waited nearly five hours for the hospital to arrange transport. They said Metro Hospital did not provide a life-support ambulance or an accompanying doctor, and that they eventually arranged an ambulance from another hospital. The family argued the delay left them to organise essential medical support at a time when Kumar was critically ill.
Metro Hospital disputed the allegations. It said the patient had received treatment according to medical protocol and that the family was offered a transfer to its other facility but did not consent. The commission separately considered whether the medical treatment itself amounted to negligence.
Commission Found Deficiency In Transfer Of Care
The commission relied on expert assessments from a medical board at G B Pant Hospital, the Delhi Medical Council and the Medical Council of India. The assessments found that streptokinase was an established treatment for the valve obstruction and that a stroke was a known complication. The commission therefore did not find medical negligence by the treating doctor.
It reached a different conclusion on the hospital’s responsibility for the transfer. The commission said the hospital had not made adequate arrangements for safe transportation or explained why it could not provide an ambulance and qualified medical personnel. It held that the hospital’s duty of care continued beyond treatment inside its premises and included reasonable steps to ensure continuity and safety when a patient needed to be shifted.
Patients and attendants could not be expected to arrange essential emergency infrastructure on their own, the commission said. It held that the failure to provide transport and medical supervision for a critically ill patient amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint was filed in 2015 and was partly allowed against the hospital. The compensation of Rs 15 lakh was for the mental agony and distress caused by the deficient service and the risk to Kumar’s life; the additional Rs 50,000 was awarded for litigation lasting more than 10 years.
FAQs
What compensation did the Delhi consumer commission order Metro Hospital to pay?
The hospital was directed to pay Rs 15 lakh in compensation and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs by January 6, 2027. Delayed payment will attract nine per cent annual interest from the date the complaint was filed.
Why was Metro Hospital held liable?
The commission found that it failed to arrange a properly equipped ambulance and medical supervision for Kumar’s transfer while he was critically ill.
Did the commission find the treating doctor medically negligent?
No. Based on expert assessments, it found that the treatment was an established course of care and that a stroke was a known complication.
