Delhi High Court Mandates Timely Resolution in Tragic Liposuction Death Case
The Delhi High Court has issued a significant directive to the National Medical Commission (NMC), compelling it to bring a long-pending medical negligence complaint concerning a fatal liposuction procedure to its "logical conclusion" within a strict six-month timeframe. This order comes nearly four-and-a-half years after the tragic death of V Anitha, a Singapore-based Indian woman, who succumbed to complications following an alleged botched surgery.
A Mother's Relentless Pursuit for Justice
The complaint was formally lodged by Ranjakam Indra Visvanathan, the grieving mother of the deceased. She has persistently alleged that regulatory bodies, including the Delhi Medical Council (DMC), failed to act decisively despite years of diligent follow-up and appeals. The case underscores deep concerns about accountability and procedural delays within India's medical oversight mechanisms.
The incident traces back to September 28, 2021. Anitha underwent liposuction at the Dezire Clinic in Delhi's SDA area, a facility operated by Dr. Prashant Yadav. According to the petition, the surgery was conducted in a manner contrary to established standard medical practices. Following the emergence of severe complications, instead of being transferred to a nearby major hospital like AIIMS or Safdarjung Hospital, the patient was transported approximately 27 kilometers away to Vedantaa Hospital in Faridabad, where she was declared dead on arrival.
Contradictory Evidence and Procedural Hurdles
The petition presented to the court highlights several alarming and suspicious circumstances surrounding the case:
- The Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report from Vedantaa Hospital, dated September 28, 2021, contained contradictory entries. One section noted the patient was unconscious upon arrival, while another stated she was "brought dead."
- A No-Objection Certificate issued by the SGM Nagar police station in Faridabad on September 30, 2021, indicated the cause of death was "to be ascertained later," further clouding the initial findings.
- The family's attempts to register a First Information Report (FIR) were reportedly refused, citing the prerequisite of a preliminary inquiry by a medical authority in negligence cases.
Consequently, a formal complaint was filed with the Delhi Medical Council on February 15, 2022. The DMC held an initial hearing on September 28 of that year. However, the petitioner alleges that no subsequent order or communication was issued, leaving the matter indefinitely "under consideration" despite repeated follow-ups by the family.
High Court's Decisive Intervention and Legal Framework
Frustrated by the alleged delays, potential cover-up of malpractice, and a perceived pattern of systemic negligence, Visvanathan escalated the matter to the National Medical Commission. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court presided over the case, with the order passed on January 15 and made public on February 3.
The court's order acknowledges that the state medical council (DMC) is the primary authority empowered to address such grievances. However, it firmly establishes that if the state council fails to decide the complaint within a reasonable period, the matter can and should be transferred to the NMC. The ruling mandates that the NMC must then conduct and conclude its inquiry within a period of six months from the date of the order.
This judicial directive not only seeks justice for a specific family but also sets a crucial precedent for expediting medical negligence investigations across the country. It addresses critical issues of regulatory lapses, patient safety, and the right to a timely resolution for victims of alleged medical malpractice. The case continues to highlight the urgent need for robust and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints against healthcare providers, ensuring that accountability is not lost in bureaucratic delays.
