The recent order upheld by the Supreme Court noted that every death in the institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care. The Supreme Court bench of Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice J. B. Pardiwala dismissed a complaint alleging a hospital of medical negligence and a deficiency in service, stating that the case was not established conclusively.

The NCDRC was hearing a petition filed by the complainant that her husband was brought into the hospital through the casualty entrance complaining of vomiting, where he vomited again and complained of breathlessness. On examining the patient, the doctors stated that the patient had 70% blockage in the arteries and administered an injection, followed by the patient developing cramps and falling unconscious. She further added that around midnight, her husband was shifted to the ICU and was declared dead at 1.06 am.

The petitioner had filed a case alleging that the hospital and staff gave no proper explanation for the cause of death; no proper records were given, and treatment was done casually. She had pleaded for compensation of Rs. 7 crores with 18% interest and Rs. 3 crores for mental agony in her petition. On the other hand, the hospital and the staff have denied the allegation of medical negligence and claimed that the fact that the patient was suffering from diabetes was suppressed by the patient and his wife. The hospital added that proper procedure was followed by the hospital and the entire cardiology and critical care team. However, the patient could not be revived and died.

The complainant approached the apex court where the bench dismissed the appeal and stated, "Unless the appellants can establish before this Court any specific course of conduct suggesting a lack of due medical attention and care, it would not be possible for the Court to second-guess the medical judgment of the doctors on the line of medical treatment which was administered to the spouse of the first appellant. In the absence of any such material disclosing medical negligence, we find no justification to form a view at variance with the view which was taken by the NCDRC."