State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sachin vs M/S Fortis Flt. Lt. Rajan Dhall Hospital ... on 23 March, 2026
CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution:12.03.2015
Date of hearing:17.11.2025
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
COMPLAINT CASE NO.174/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
MR. SACHIN
S/O LATE MR. SURESH KUMAR
R/O F-27, KATWARIA SARAI VILLAGE,
VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI -110016
...COMPLAINANT
(THROUGH MR. DHRUV KUMAR,
COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLAINANT)
VERSUS
1. FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
2. DIRECTOR (DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2017)
FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL,
...OPPOSITE PARTIES
(THROUGH Ms. M. MALIKA CHAUDHURI,
COUNSEL FOR THE OP NO.1 AND 2)
3. DR. RANA PATIR
DIRECTOR CONSULTANT
FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL,
4. DR. SANDEEP VAISHYA
DIRECTOR CONSULTANT
FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL,
ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 19
CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
5. DR. DINESH RATTNANI
ASSOCIATE CONSULTANT
FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL,
ALL R/O SECTOR -8, POCKET -01
ARUNA ASAF ALI MARG, VASANTKUNJ,
NEW DELHI -110070
...OPPOSITE PARTIES
(THROUGH Ms. M. MALIKA CHAUDHURI,
COUNSEL FOR THE OP NO.1 AND 2)
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON'BLE MS PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
JUDGMENT
1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs:
(i) Direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation amount in favour of the Complainant and against the Opposite Parties, in the interest of justice.
2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present complaint are that the Complainant is the son of the deceased Suresh Kumar, who met with multiple grievous injuries in a road side accident occurred at about 10.45 PM on dated 07.03.2014 against which the FIR bearing No.211/2014 was registered at PS Vasant Vihar.
ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
3. It is stated that the father of the complainant was admitted for treatment at OP No.1 hospital and the treatment was preferred by OP No.3 to 5. It is stated that during the period of treatment, the father of the Complainant developed Grade -II decubitus ulcer (Bedsore) for which the dressing was done every day and opinion of a Plastic Surgeon was also sought. The Plastic Surgeon advised VAC dressing; however, no such dressing was done by the concerned doctor of the OP No.1 Hospital and the patient was discharged without any advice. It is stated that due to the said negligence, carelessness and maltreatment of Opposite Party No. 3 to 5 the condition of the patient was gradually deteriorated. It is further stated that due to ill treatment, ultimately the father of the Complainant expired on 05.10.2014. It is stated that life of the patient might have been saved if the hospital authority alongwith the concern doctor had been treated the patient by their devotedness. It is stated that an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- has been spent on the treatment of the deceased. Therefore, OP Nos. 1 to 5 are severally and jointly liable to pay the amount as prayed for, by the complainant.
4. A perusal of record shows that upon notice the OP Nos.1, 3 to 5 filed their joint written statement, wherein, inter-alia, while admitting the admission and treatment of the father of the Complainant to OP No.1 hospital, The OPs stated that the patient Suresh Kumar was admitted with severe brain and chest injuries in an unconscious state with multiple rib fractures, hemopneumothorax and a flail chest, which were due to a road traffic accident. It is stated that he developed infection in brain and chest and required a ventriculo-peritoneal shunt to divert the cerebrospinal fluid as there was obstruction to its flow. After undergoing rigorous and lifesaving treatment for 73 days he was discharged on 20.05.2014. The ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026 SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
patient was again admitted on 23.06.2014 for de-canulation of tracheotomy tube and was discharged on 24.06.2014. He was again admitted in emergency due to an episode of seizure on 28.06.2014 and appropriate treatment was given to manage the medical condition and to stabilize him. It is stated that the patient had grade IV bedsore when he was admitted to hospital because of deterioration of his bedsore condition at home due to inadequate care, which was also recorded in the progress note. The patient was discharged on request on 04.07.2014 with necessary medical advice including advise for bedsore care.
5. While admitting that due to prolonged stay of the patient at the hospital for over two months, the patient developed bedsore for which daily dressings were being done, the OPs stating when the bedsore did not heal an advice was taken from Plastic Surgeon on 10.05.2014 who advised for VAC dressing to be done in view of the Grade-IV Sacral Decubitus Ulcer that had developed. The said advise was repeatedly given to the attendants till the day of discharge on 20.05.2014, however they chose to have the VAC dressing post discharge at their home. It is further stated that the treatment could have carried out only once the attendants' consent to the same and a subsequent order is placed for obtaining the VAC dressing from the outside vendors as the items was not available in the hospital and therefore could not be supplied. It is stated that the consent was never given by the attendants of the patient and hence the treatment could not be carried out by the OPs. Further, that the attendant was also given option to buy the item straight from the vendor, which they knowingly decided not to do. Hence, the allegation of negligence on the part of the OPs are baseless. It is further stated that the claim has not ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026 SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
been substantiated by the Complainant and an inflated figures has been made.
6. The Complainant has filed the rejoinder rebutting the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their Evidence by way of Affidavit in order to prove their averments on record.
7. We have perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties and have heard the counsel appeared on behalf of the parties.
8. The core grievance of the Complainant is not merely the development of bedsores, but the failure of the Opposite Parties to implement the advised course of treatment, failure to ensure continuity of care, and discharge of a critically ill patient without ensuring that essential treatment (VAC dressing) was administered or effectively arranged.
9. It is settled law that a hospital owes a non-delegable duty of care to its patients. Once a patient is admitted, the hospital cannot absolve itself by shifting responsibility to attendants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, (1998) 4 SCC 39, held:
"A hospital is responsible for the acts of its doctors and staff and cannot escape liability by pleading absence of direct negligence."
10. Similarly, in Savita Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, the Supreme Court categorically held that the burden shifts on the hospital to prove absence of negligence once prima facie deficiency is shown.
ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
11. In the present case, it is admitted by the Opposite Parties that the patient developed the bedsore due to prolonged stay of the patient at the hospital for over two months, for which daily dressings were being done. The Opposite Parties have also admitted that the Plastic Surgeon advised VAC dressing. However, the Opposite Parties failed to implement the advice and discharged the patient. In Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 634, the Supreme Court held:
"Once a particular line of treatment is chosen, failure to follow that course with due diligence amounts to negligence."
12. Similarly, in V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital, (2010) 5 SCC 513, the Court held that non-adherence to standard medical protocol constitutes negligence.
13. To escape its liability, the Opposite Parties have stated that VAC dressing could not be done as the VAC dressing was not available in the hospital and the same could not be procured as the attendant of the deceased patient did not give consent for the same.
14. The defence of the Opposite Parties that the Attendant of the deceased patient did not give consent or that the VAC dressing was not available in house, is untenable. A hospital of OP No.1's stature is expected to arrange essential equipment or ensure treatment before discharge.
15. It is settled law that lack of logistics is not a valid defence in law. It is also a settled principle that once a hospital undertakes treatment of a patient, it assumes a non-delegable and absolute duty of care. Administrative difficulties, infrastructural shortcomings, or non-
ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
availability of equipment cannot dilute this obligation. In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in violation of the right to life. Financial constraints or lack of facilities cannot be a justification."
16. The Court categorically rejected the defence that beds or facilities were unavailable, holding that systemic or logistical failures are the responsibility of the institution, not the patient.
17. While observing that a hospital cannot escape liability by pleading lack of equipment, staff, or infrastructure, as these are matters completely within its control, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savita Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute, (2004) 8 SCC 56, held as under:
"Once a patient is admitted in a hospital, it is the hospital's duty to provide all facilities required for treatment. The burden lies on the hospital to show that there was no negligence."
18. This judgment squarely applies where a specialist has given advice and treatment is not carried out due to alleged non-availability of logistics.
19. Furthermore, it is also settled law that failure to arrange equipment after advising treatment is negligence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 SCC 634, as held as under:
"If a particular line of treatment is adopted, failure to carry it out with due care and diligence amounts to negligence."
ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
20. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384, has observed that:
"Deficiencies arising from poor hospital management, lack of infrastructure, or non-availability of necessary medical support systems cannot be used as a defence."
21. The National Commission in the case of Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal, (NCDRC) has also held that:
"Non-availability of equipment or delay in arranging the same is a failure of hospital administration and constitutes medical negligence."
22. In the presence case, admittedly VAC dressing was advised by the Plastic Surgeon, however, the Opposite Parties failed to administer the advice given by the Plastic Surgeon. Failure to administer the said advice is negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.
23. Furthermore, Courts have consistently held that a patient or his attendant cannot be asked to procure/arrange critical life-saving equipment and making treatment contingent upon procurement by family members, amount to unfair and negligent medical practice.
24. Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to deal with the contention of the Opposite Parties that VAC dressing is not a life-saving procedure and nor is the gold standard for treatment of bedsores and it is just one of the methods of dressing a wound; and routine dressing is still the main method of dressing in bedsores.
ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
25. We have examined the standard clinical protocols relating to the management of decubitus ulcers (bedsores), use of VAC dressing and have found as under:
1. VAC (Vacuum Assisted Closure) dressing, also known as Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT), is a well-established and widely accepted medical modality for the treatment of advanced bedsores, particularly Grade III and Grade IV decubitus ulcers.
2. Grade IV bedsores represent full-thickness tissue loss, often involving muscle and bone, and are associated with a high risk of secondary infection, septicemia, delayed healing, and mortality, especially in immobile and critically ill patients.
3. In such cases, standard medical practice mandates advanced wound management, which includes:
o Regular debridement,
o Infection control,
o And VAC dressing to promote granulation tissue, reduce
bacterial load, and accelerate wound healing.
4. VAC dressing is not an experimental or optional procedure in cases of Grade IV bedsores. It forms part of the recognized standard of care in modern hospital practice, particularly when advised by a specialist such as a Plastic Surgeon.
26. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that VAC dressing is a necessary and integral component of treatment for Grade IV decubitus ulcers and once a specialist opinion recommends VAC dressing, the treating hospital and attending doctors are professionally obligated to implement the said advised treatment, ensure availability of the necessary equipment. Further, in case the treating hospital and attending doctors are not in a position to implement the said advised treatment, they are in obligation to refer the patient to an appropriate facility where such treatment can be administered, or continue inpatient care until the essential treatment is ALLOWED PAGE 9 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026 SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
provided. However, in the present case, the Opposite Parties have admittedly failed to do so.
27. Thus, in our view failure of the Opposite Parties to administer VAC dressing despite specialist's advice, without any documented medical contraindication, amounts to a departure from accepted medical standards. Further, logistical issues, non-availability of equipment, or administrative constraints, as contended by the Opposite Parties, do not constitute valid medical justification for non-implementation of a medically indicated treatment in a hospitalized patient.
28. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties discharged the deceased patient, who was admittedly suffering from Grade IV bedsore without providing or arranging VAC dressing, on the ground of non-availability of VAC dressing in the hospital and no consent by the attendant of the patient, which exposed the patient to a foreseeable risk of infection, deterioration, and systemic complications, which is inconsistent with reasonable standards of medical care.
29. It is a well settled proposition of law that compelling a patient or his attendants to procure or arrange critical life-saving equipment and making medical treatment contingent upon such procurement constitutes gross medical negligence, deficiency in service, and unfair trade practice. Such conduct violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pt. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 286, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (Supra), Spring Meadows Hospital (Supra), and Savita Garg (Supra)."
ALLOWED PAGE 10 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
30. Thus, the plea taken by the Opposite Parties that the advised VAC dressing could not be administered due to non-availability of equipment or lack of consent is legally untenable. Lack of logistics or infrastructural constraints cannot absolve a hospital of its duty of care. The said plea stands rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, Savita Garg, and Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa. Such failure constitutes clear medical negligence and deficiency in service.
31. Now, the question before us is the entitlement of the Complainant to the amount of compensation and reimbursement of the expenses towards treatment of the deceased patient. Though, the Complainant has stated that an amount of approximately ₹70,00,000/- was spent on the treatment of the deceased over a prolonged period, however, in prayer, the Complainant has prayed for Rs.75,00,000/- as compensation. Further, the Complainant in his evidence by way of affidavit has submitted the details of the payment made to Opposite Party No.1 hospital for treatment of the deceased from 07.03.2014 to 04.07.2014, which is reproduced as under:
ALLOWED PAGE 11 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
32. The Complainant has also filed details of the payments made by the Complainant for purchase of medicines and other consumables used for treatment of the deceased patient from 07.03.2014 to 23.09.2014, which amounts to Rs.4,46,366/-.
ALLOWED PAGE 12 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
33. From the documentary evidence placed on record, it stands established that the Complainant has paid a sum of ₹43,28,101/- to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital towards hospitalization, ICU care, procedures, investigations, and allied medical services rendered to the deceased patient during the period 07.03.2014 to 04.07.2014. In addition thereto, the Complainant has filed bills and vouchers evidencing expenditure of ₹4,46,366/- towards purchase of medicines, consumables, and ancillary treatment required for the deceased patient from 07.03.2014 to 23.09.2014. Thus, the total medical expenditure duly supported by record comes to ₹47,74,467/-.
34. The Opposite Parties have not specifically disputed the authenticity of the bills, vouchers, or the factum of payments made. Their objection is confined only to the allegation that the claim is "inflated", without producing any contra-evidence or expert material to dislodge the documentary proof submitted by the Complainant.
35. It is settled law that actual medical expenses supported by documentary evidence are reimbursable, particularly where prolonged treatment has been necessitated due to medical negligence. In Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that reimbursement of actual medical expenses is a legitimate head of compensation when negligence results in extended treatment or complications.
36. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in V. Krishnakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (as followed in later NCDRC decisions) wherein it reiterated that once medical expenses ALLOWED PAGE 13 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026 SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
are proved by documentary evidence and are not specifically rebutted, denial of reimbursement would amount to miscarriage of justice.
37. In the present case, the prolonged hospitalization, repeated admissions, management of severe complications, and subsequent deterioration are directly attributable to the Opposite Parties' failure to adhere to the standard of care, particularly non-implementation of VAC dressing despite specialist advice.
38. Accordingly, this Commission finds that the Complainant is entitled to reimbursement of the proven medical expenses of Rs.47,74,467/-, as the same bears a clear and proximate nexus with the negligent acts and omissions of the Opposite Parties.
39. In our view, compensation in cases of medical negligence is not confined merely to reimbursement of expenses, but extends to loss of life, pain and suffering, mental agony, loss of dignity, and the trauma suffered by the family members. The deceased patient, after suffering grievous injuries in a road traffic accident, survived for nearly seven months under intensive medical care. During this period, he endured prolonged hospitalization, invasive procedures, development of Grade-IV bedsore, repeated infections, and gradual deterioration, culminating in death on 05.10.2014.
40. While determining the quantum of compensation in cases of medical negligence, it is a settled principle that Consumer Fora must ensure consistency with comparable cases, avoid arbitrariness, and strike a balance between restitution and proportionality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Commission have repeatedly emphasized that compensation must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not a windfall.
ALLOWED PAGE 14 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
41. The negligence established against the Opposite Parties is not a mere error of judgment, but a systemic and administrative failure, involving non-implementation of specialist advice, lack of continuity of care, and premature discharge of a critically ill patient without essential treatment.
42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Balram Prasad v. Dr. Kunal Saha, (2014) 1 SCC 384, held that compensation must be "real, reasonable, and commensurate with the gravity of negligence and its consequences," and that courts must adopt a pragmatic approach rather than a conservative one.
43. Courts have consistently held that where negligence results in prolonged suffering followed by death, compensation must reflect not only the outcome but also the quality of life lost during the treatment period.
44. Further, in Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia, (1998) 4 SCC 39, it was held that compensation should also account for the mental agony and emotional suffering of the family members, especially where negligence results in death.
45. In Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre v. Asha Jaiswal, I (2014) CPJ 267 (NC), the National Commission awarded compensation where death occurred due to failure of hospital administration and lack of timely and appropriate medical care. The Commission held that systemic lapses and administrative failures justify substantial compensation even where initial illness was serious.
ALLOWED PAGE 15 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
46. In Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital reported in (2010) 3 SCC 480 (as followed by NCDRC in subsequent cases), it has been consistently reiterated that once negligence is established, compensation must reflect gravity of negligence, duration of suffering, and consequences culminating in death.
47. Further, Hon'ble National Commission in S. K. Sharma v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, I (2018) CPJ 389 (NC), upheld compensation where failure to follow standard medical protocol and lack of continuity of care aggravated the patient's condition. The Commission emphasized that non-adherence to specialist advice is a serious lapse warranting monetary redress.
48. In the present case, the failure of the Opposite Parties to administer the advised VAC dressing, failure to ensure continuity of care, and discharge of a critically ill patient without implementing essential treatment exposed the patient to foreseeable risks of infection and systemic complications. This amounts to loss of a chance of survival, which has been recognized as a compensable injury by Courts.
49. Further, the Complainant, being the son of the deceased, not only incurred enormous financial expenditure but also witnessed prolonged suffering of his father due to avoidable lapses in medical care. The anguish, helplessness, and trauma suffered by the family cannot be quantified in strict mathematical terms, but must be reasonably compensated.
50. While the Complainant has claimed a total sum of ₹75,00,000/-, this Commission is conscious of the principle that compensation should not ALLOWED PAGE 16 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026 SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
be punitive or windfall in nature, but must strike a balance between restitution and proportionality.
51. Having regard to the nature of negligence established, the prolonged suffering of the deceased, the failure to follow specialist advice, the eventual death of the patient, and the financial and emotional impact on the Complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that an award of compensation over and above the reimbursable medical expenses is fully justified.
52. Hon'ble National Commission in Kailash Hospital & Heart Institute v.
Munni Devi, II (2019) CPJ 17 (NC), had awarded compensation for prolonged suffering and deterioration caused by hospital negligence, holding that compensation must account not only for death but also for the avoidable pain and suffering endured during treatment.
53. Accordingly, a consolidated amount of Rs.10,00,000/- under the heads of mental agony, pain and suffering, loss of consortium to the family, and deficiency in service is warranted to meet the ends of justice.
54. Further, due to negligent conduct and omission on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has been constrained to approach this Commission and pursue prolonged litigation. It is therefore just and reasonable to award litigation costs of Rs.50,000/-, in line with the settled principle that a successful litigant should not be financially burdened for seeking redressal of a legally enforceable grievance.
55. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law as discussed above, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay:
ALLOWED PAGE 17 OF 19 CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
A. An amount of Rs.47,74,467/- towards reimbursement of proven medical expenses strictly confined to documentary evidence.
B. Rs.10,00,000/- towards consolidated compensation for pain, suffering, mental agony, and loss of life.
C. Rs.50,000/- as litigation costs
D. In case the Opposite Party fails to pay the aforesaid amount as
per the clause (A), on or before 22.05.2026, the entire amount is to be paid along with an interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from the date of filing of the complaint.
56. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
57. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on https://e-jagriti.gov.in portal for perusal of the parties. A copy of this judgment be also sent to the parties free of costs.
58. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL)
PRESIDENT
(PINKI)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
ALLOWED PAGE 18 OF 19
CC NO.174/2015 DOD: 23.03.2026
SACHIN V. MIS FORTIS, FLT. LT. RAJAN DHALL HOSPITAL & ORS.
Pronounced on: 23.03.2026
ALLOWED PAGE 19 OF 19