A cardiac patient’s death following angioplasty led to serious allegations of mishandling, improper consent, wrong blood transfusion, and infrastructure failure. The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, however, drew a clear distinction between medical complication and medical negligence.
The patient had presented with acute extensive anterior wall myocardial infarction accompanied by pulmonary edema and cardiogenic shock. She was shifted to a tertiary hospital where angiography and angioplasty were performed and two stents implanted.
The complainants alleged that she had been dropped during transfer, that angioplasty was done without specific consent, that A-negative blood was wrongly transfused despite her being A-positive, and that malfunctioning hospital facilities contributed to her deterioration.
She later developed septicemia and renal failure and passed away.
On examining the record, the Commission found that pulmonary edema had been present prior to hospital admission, negating the allegation of mishandling during transfer. The consent form signed by the patient’s relative authorised changes in operative procedure if required, thereby covering the angioplasty.
Regarding blood transfusion, the Commission noted that A-negative blood can be safely administered to an A-positive patient. The fact that the unit was near expiry did not make it unsafe, as it had not expired at the time of transfusion.
When the patient suffered a subsequent myocardial infarction, the hospital provided thrombolytic therapy without delay. Shifting her to another centre was deemed medically unsafe given her unstable condition.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Commission reiterated that negligence must be established through evidence of deviation from accepted medical standards. Known complications and adverse outcomes, in the absence of expert proof of breach, cannot automatically attract liability.
Finding no deficiency in service, the appeal was dismissed.
IML Insight
Emergency cardiology involves high-risk decision-making under time constraints. This ruling reinforces that courts require demonstrable breach of standard care — not retrospective dissatisfaction with outcomes. Detailed consent documentation, accurate recording of clinical status at admission, and adherence to established protocols remain the strongest safeguards against litigation.
Source : Order pronounced by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 8th January, 2026