Delhi State Consumer Commission has called the failure to arrange a life-support ambulance for a critical patient “not a mere procedural lapse”, holding Metro Hospital liable over the transfer of a stroke patient.
New Delhi: A hospital’s duty of care does not stop at the door of its treatment room, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held, directing Metro Hospital & Heart Institute, Lajpat Nagar, to pay ₹15 lakh in compensation and ₹50,000 in litigation costs to a patient who suffered a stroke and was left without a life-support ambulance for his transfer [Suresh Kumar v. Metro Hospital & Heart Institute & Ors.].
Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki, Member (Judicial), who authored the judgment, pronounced it on November 6, 2026. Complaint Case No. 1146 of 2015 was partly allowed against the hospital, while the treating doctor was held not negligent.
The treatment itself was cleared
Relying on Martin F. D’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Commission noted that consumer fora are not experts in medicine and must lean on expert opinion. An expert board at GB Pant Hospital found that thrombolysis was an established line of treatment, that high-risk consent had been taken, and that a stroke from a dislodged clot is a known complication. The Delhi Medical Council found no negligence against the treating doctor, Dr Samanjoy Mukharjee, and the Medical Council of India upheld that view in appeal.
On that footing, no medical negligence could be made out against him.
What the family said happened
The complainant, Suresh Kumar, represented through his wife, had undergone a dual valve replacement at AIIMS in 2008. On November 13, 2013, acute breathing difficulty took him to Metro Hospital, where an echo showed an obstructed aortic prosthesis with a clot. He was given streptokinase, a clot-dissolving drug, and on November 15 his right side became weak and he lost his speech.
According to the complaint, the hospital wanted him shifted for neurological care but then said no fully equipped ambulance was available and the accompanying doctor was “busy somewhere.” The family alleged that about five hours were lost before they arranged an ambulance from Vimhans Hospital themselves, with no doctor accompanying him. The complaint states that he has not recovered and remains unable to speak, read or write, or earn a living.
The hospital denied negligence. It said a high-risk consent had been taken for thrombolysis and the complications explained, and that the family had declined a transfer to its Noida facility and asked for a discharge to take him to Vimhans, which was done without delay.
ALSO READ: Right to Trauma Care Is Part of Right to Life: Supreme Court Seeks Nationwide Reform
Where the hospital fell short
The Commission separated the treatment from what came after it. On the record, it found, the hospital had failed to arrange an ambulance or a qualified medical professional for the transfer and had given no explanation, even though the facts lay within its exclusive knowledge. Citing Balram Prasad v. Kunal Saha on the higher standard of care expected of premier hospitals, it said:
“The provision of basic emergency facilities, including an appropriately equipped ambulance and qualified medical personnel for patient transfer, cannot be treated as an optional or dispensable service.”
“The duty of a hospital does not come to an end merely upon providing consultation or administering treatment within its premises. Rather, such duty necessarily encompasses taking reasonable and appropriate measures to ensure the safety, continuity of care and well-being of the patient, including during the process of transferring the patient to another medical facility, wherever such transfer becomes necessary.”
“The failure to arrange for an ambulance and appropriate medical supervision during the transportation of a critical patient is not a mere procedural lapse or an inconsequential administrative omission.”
This, the Commission held, was deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Patients and their families, it said, cannot be expected to arrange essential medical infrastructure on their own in an emergency.
The amount and the deadline
The hospital must pay ₹15 lakh for the mental agony and distress caused by its failure to provide a life-support ambulance and for putting the patient’s life at risk, plus ₹50,000 as costs for litigation that ran for more than ten years. Payment is due by January 6, 2027; if it is not made, the sum will carry interest at 9 per cent a year from the date the complaint was filed until payment. The treating doctor had been proceeded against ex parte in 2016.
What it means for emergency transfers
Negligence complaints often end once expert bodies clear the treatment. This ruling shows that a hospital can still answer for what it fails to do around the treatment. By treating a properly equipped ambulance and an accompanying doctor as part of the duty of care in an emergency transfer, the Commission has signalled that private hospitals charging premium fees cannot leave families to make their own arrangements when a critical patient has to be moved.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar v. Metro Hospital & Heart Institute & Ors.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 1146 of 2015
Forum: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki, Member (Judicial)
Date of Decision: November 6, 2026
For the Complainant: Advocate Charu Sachdeva
For Metro Hospital: Advocate Pradeep Kar
