Hospital cannot be left scot-free for doctor's negligence: HC denies relief to Max Hospital Dehradun in Rs 10 lakh compensation case
Nainital: The Uttarakhand High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Max Healthcare Institute Limited in an alleged medical negligence case where the hospital was directed to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation following the death of a patient during treatment.
Medical Dialogues had reported on the case in which the Uttarakhand Medical Council directed the hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation to the family of the deceased after holding the hospital and its doctors responsible and guilty of medical negligence. Two doctors, including a neurosurgeon, were also suspended in the case. Aggrieved by the order, the Dehradun-based private hospital approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking relief. However, the Court declined to entertain the plea and instead directed the parties to file their counter-affidavits.
Hearing a writ petition filed by the hospital, Justice Pankaj Purohit observed that when large hospitals operate by engaging several doctors to treat patients, the hospital cannot escape responsibility for negligence committed by a doctor working under it.
The Court said that a hospital cannot be left “scot-free” from legal action in such cases.
"In such an era, when big hospitals are running in society and engaging various doctors for the treatment of the public, the hospital cannot be left scot-free from being prosecuted by a court of law for the negligence committed by the doctor," said the Bench.
The petition was filed challenging the February 4, 2026, order of the Ethics Committee of the Uttarakhand Medical Council in a complaint. The Council had directed the hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh to the complainant for negligence.
The complaint was filed after the patient, who was admitted to Max Super Speciality Hospital, Dehradun, on April 4, 2025, died during treatment on April 7. Following her death, her husband lodged a formal complaint before the Uttarakhand Medical Council, alleging negligence and professional misconduct by the hospital and its doctors had led to her demise.
Based on the complaint, the Ethics, Discipline and Registration Committee of the Council conducted a detailed probe and found the hospital guilty of medical neglect during the course of the woman's treatment and held the doctors, including a neurosurgeon, primarily responsible for the lapse. Accordingly, the council ordered the hospital to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation to the family.
In the present plea, the hospital management argued that the Uttarakhand Medical Council had no jurisdiction to impose compensation on it. Referring to Section 10(f) of the Uttarakhand Medical Council Act, 2002, the hospital contended that the Council is empowered to act only against a “medical practitioner” for misconduct or negligence.
It also cited the definition of “medical practitioner” under Section 2(7) of the Act, which refers to a person qualified under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. On this basis, the hospital claimed that the Council had exceeded its powers by directing compensation against the hospital.
However, the respondents opposed the plea and relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & others vs. Master Rishab Sharma & others, along with Pooja Sharma & others vs. Maharaja Agrasen Hospital & others. In those cases, the Apex Court held that a hospital can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of a doctor working in the hospital, even under consumer protection law.
After hearing both sides, the High Court said it was not convinced by the arguments made on behalf of the hospital. The Court rejected the hospital’s interim relief application and directed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on March 25, 2026.
To view the court order, click on the link below:
Also read- Metropolis Healthcare Executive Chairperson Ameera Shah named as new President of NATHEALTH
