The UT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II to prepone the hearing in a medical negligence complaint against the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI) and the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) hospital to August 31, and to decide the matter on merits within three months, the commission said.
Background and complaint
The complaint was filed by Palo Devi, the widow of the deceased Rakesh Kumar, and their children — Abhishek, Vishal and Savita — residents of Ramdarbar. The family lodged the consumer grievance through advocate Pankaj Chandgothia, alleging negligence by the two hospitals that led to Rakesh’s death on March 28, 2025.
According to the petition, Rakesh was diagnosed with a serious lung disease by the ESIC hospital on March 20, 2025 and referred to the PGI emergency on March 26, 2025. The petitioners alleged that, despite the need for emergency treatment, PGI doctors did not admit him and that failure to provide timely care resulted in his death two days later.
Procedure and legal points cited by the commission
The state commission invoked provisions of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, framed under the Consumer Protection Act, to stress that routine adjournments should be avoided and special category cases disposed of expeditiously. It noted the complainants’ contention that the district commission-II had given an extended adjournment and a second opportunity to the hospitals to file replies without adequate justification.
“For the reasons explained in the application, the same is allowed. The district commission-II is directed to decide the matter on merits within three months and hear the case on August 31.”
The state commission, comprising Padma Pandey (presiding member) and Rajesh K Arya (member), heard a revision petition filed by the complainants challenging the district commission-II’s decision to grant a nearly three-month adjournment to September 24 after previously directing the hospitals to file replies.
What the order requires
- The district commission-II must hear the matter on 31 August.
- The district commission-II must decide the complaint on merits within three months from the date of the directed hearing.
- The hospitals were earlier directed to file replies to applications seeking cross-examination of doctors; the state commission’s order follows the complainants’ objection to further delay.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 20 March 2025 | ESIC hospital diagnoses Rakesh Kumar with serious lung disease |
| 26 March 2025 | Rakesh referred to PGI Emergency |
| 28 March 2025 | Rakesh Kumar dies at PGI |
| 3 July 2025 | District commission-II adjourns the case to 24 September after allowing hospitals to file replies |
| State commission order (date of hearing) | Hearing directed on 31 August; decision within three months |
Legal and public-interest implications
The state commission’s direction underscores procedural safeguards in consumer forums intended to prevent undue delay, particularly in cases categorised as special where timely adjudication is essential. Medical negligence matters often hinge on documentary evidence, timelines of referrals and treatment, and cross-examination of treating physicians — elements that the state panel highlighted by pressing the district commission to move the matter forward.
By setting a firm hearing date and a three-month deadline for final disposal, the commission signalled the need for administrative efficiency in consumer justice. The order also clarifies that parties should promptly respond to procedural applications such as requests to cross-examine medical staff, rather than seek adjournments that prolong resolution.
Next steps
The district commission-II will conduct the hearing on 31 August, as directed, and the commission must render a decision within three months thereafter. The complainants have sought cross‑examination of doctors; the district commission’s approach to these applications will be a key factor in the pace and nature of the inquiry.
No further statements from the hospitals or additional filings were reported in the state commission’s order summary.
