What should have been a life-saving transfer for a critically ill cancer patient instead became a prolonged ordeal — and eventually, a finding of service deficiency against the air ambulance provider.
The patient’s family engaged a private air ambulance service to transport her from Mumbai to Amritsar for urgent medical care. A quotation was issued setting out the total charges, acceptable modes of payment, and the facilities to be provided onboard — including a nurse, a doctor, and space for two relatives.
An advance was paid, with the balance to be settled before departure.
However, upon reaching the airport with the patient in a critical condition, the service provider refused to accept payment through card or online transfer — despite these modes being expressly permitted in the quotation. Instead, the family was compelled to arrange cash and deposit it into the provider’s bank account, causing a delay of over two hours while the patient waited outside the aircraft.
The problems did not end there.
Contrary to what had been agreed, only one relative was allowed to travel. No nurse accompanied the patient. And rather than flying directly to Amritsar as promised, the aircraft made an unscheduled stop at Jaipur — prolonging the journey without prior disclosure.
After the patient later passed away, the family approached the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Both the District Commission and the State Commission found the air ambulance provider liable. The forums noted that while the flight had technically operated and a full refund of charges was therefore not justified, the service provider had clearly breached contractual terms by forcing cash payment, delaying the transfer, failing to provide agreed medical support staff, limiting attendants, and altering the flight route without consent.
These lapses were held to have caused serious mental agony and harassment to a family already facing a medical emergency.
Compensation was enhanced on appeal, reflecting the cumulative impact of these service failures.
When the matter reached the National Commission, the air ambulance company sought to resist further relief. The Commission, however, upheld the findings of deficiency and focused on an additional aspect — interest.
It held that where compensation is awarded for deficient medical services, interest is ordinarily justified to account for the prolonged deprivation of money and the hardship caused. Accordingly, interest was directed to be paid on the compensation amount from the date of the original complaint.
The ruling reinforced that emergency medical transport providers are bound by the same consumer protection standards as hospitals and clinics — and that deviations from promised care, even if the core service is technically delivered, can still attract legal liability.
IML Insight
Emergency medical logistics operate in moments where patients and families have no bargaining power. Courts are increasingly clear that any deviation from quoted services — payment terms, staffing commitments, or route assurances — will be treated as actionable deficiency. For air ambulance providers and hospitals coordinating transfers, contractual transparency must be matched by real-time operational compliance, especially when patient vulnerability is at its peak.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 25th August, 2025.