When the Right to Life and Emergency Care Is Ignored: A Tragic Case of Medical Negligence
- Sunil Khattri
- Oct 6
- 5 min read
In India, medical negligence is not merely a professional lapse, it can become a violation of fundamental rights. Yet far too often, lives are lost not for want of medicine, but for want of timely action. The following scenario shows how multiple failures in care, delay and procedural neglect can lead to loss of life.
The Unfolding Tragedy
A woman began suffering headaches, fever and other concerning symptoms. She was taken for consultation with a neurosurgeon, who diagnosed psychosomatic symptoms as the primary diagnosis. Over the period of the next eight days, she grew worse.
When she was rushed to another hospital in an acute state, investigations revealed a grave neurological condition demanding immediate surgery. But overnight, no action was taken; instead, she was discharged in the middle of the night, even while ventilator-dependent, with no ambulance support. Later that morning, at a third hospital, surgery was finally carried out after a 6–8 hour delay, but the cumulative damage was already done. Tragically, she died that evening.
This is not merely a medical failure. It is a collapse of rights, duty, and the presumption of dignity.
Rights Trampled: Right to Life & Emergency Care (Article 21)
One of the deepest obligations of the State and of medical providers, is to safeguard the right to life, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. But jurisprudence has expanded that right to include the right to health, timely medical treatment, and emergency care.
In the landmark Pandit Parmanand Katara vs Union of India (1989) case, the Supreme Court held that every doctor, whether at a government or private hospital, has a professional obligation to provide immediate medical aid to any injured or critically ill person to preserve life, without waiting for legal formalities or procedural clearances. The Court made it clear that preservation of human life is of paramount importance and takes precedence over all other considerations.
This judgment forms the moral and constitutional backbone of India’s emergency care framework. It established that no hospital or doctor can refuse or delay emergency treatment, and that such denial would amount to a violation of Article 21.
When a patient on ventilator support is discharged in the middle of the night without ensuring proper transfer, or when a critical surgery is postponed despite medical necessity, it directly contradicts the spirit of the Pandit Parmanand Katara ruling, and therefore becomes not just a matter of medical negligence, but of constitutional breach.
Medical Negligence at Its Worst
Under Indian law, establishing negligence requires showing three elements: duty of care, breach of that duty, and causation leading to damage.
Here:
Duty: The doctors, the hospitals, and the staff owed a duty to properly investigate serious symptoms, monitor vitals, and act when signs worsened.
Breach: Diagnosis without tests, ignoring vitals, leaving a ventilated patient to be discharged overnight, undue surgical delay, all represent breach of standard care.
Causation & Harm: The delay and neglect contributed to catastrophic deterioration and death.
Real-Life Case Touchpoints : Did the CGHS Factor Matter?
Although no public case mirrors the precise facts above, there are instructive decisions connected to CGHS and reimbursement which highlight how courts treat access to critical care:
In Bombay HC, a central government pensioner was granted full reimbursement for a heart transplant done in a private hospital, with the court recognizing that urgent care could not be delayed awaiting government facilities.
The same high court recently slammed CGHS officials for refusing to pay ₹30 lakh in transplant costs, calling such rejection a violation of access to care.
The CGHS reimbursement regime has faced pushback from litigants who argue that delays or denials breach their right to healthcare and equal dignity.
While none of those cases involve delayed emergency care as stark as this scenario, they illustrate a pattern: CGHS beneficiaries are not always treated with the same flexibility, and hospitals or authorities may adopt restrictive practices.
Why this question must be asked ?
Because life cannot be treated as a commodity. No patient should suffer delays or inferior care because of their insurance or scheme type.
Because recognising such cases helps bring reform:
clearer legal standards,
stronger oversight of hospitals that treat CGHS and non-CGHS alike, and
accountability for negligence regardless of the patient's background.
Because such tragedies are avoidable by:
early diagnosis,
prompt action,
care protocols, and
continuous monitoring.
Unanswered Questions and Needed Reforms
This tragic scenario raises urgent questions:
Why was the brain-affecting disease misdiagnosed as psychosomatic without due checks?
Why were vital signs ignored, and no continuous monitoring instituted?
On what basis was a ventilated patient discharged without ambulance support?
Why was surgery delayed overnight when time was of the essence?
Did scheme considerations (e.g. CGHS budget or approvals) influence hesitation or denial of rapid action?
To prevent recurrence, the system needs:
Mandatory emergency protocols (triage, escalations, turnaround times) in all hospitals.
Independent audits & oversight of hospital practices, especially in state or scheme-affiliated settings.
Legal clarity reinforcing Article 21 obligations on hospitals, regardless of patient insurance or scheme.
Swift legal recourse & compensation mechanisms in medical negligence cases, with special attention to emergency care claims
Your Rights, Your Recourse
If you or your loved one faces a situation with suspected medical negligence, especially involving emergency treatment, here’s what you should do:
Demand complete medical records, which includes diagnosis, vitals charts, admission/discharge notes.
Push for expert second opinions.
Approach hospitals and regulatory bodies (State Medical Council, civil courts, consumer forum) with claims for negligence.
Invoke constitutional protection under Article 21 for denial of emergency care.
Engage lawyers expert in medical negligence and constitutional remedies.
You do not have to accept delay, misdiagnosis, or abandonment when your life is at stake. The law, if properly asserted, is on the side of dignity and timely medical care.
Final words
No one should lose their life because help came too late. Every patient, regardless of where they are treated, what insurance they hold, or which hospital they visit, has the right to timely, dignified, and life-saving medical care.
The right to life under Article 21 is not abstract; it demands action from those entrusted with public and professional duty. Doctors and hospitals are bound by both ethics and law to act swiftly in emergencies, not to turn away, delay, or discharge a patient when every minute matters.
If we continue to treat medical emergencies as administrative inconveniences rather than human crises, we risk eroding the very foundation of trust between patients and the system meant to protect them.
Because at its core, the right to life is also the right to be treated promptly, fairly, and with respect.
The Author :
Dr. Sunil Khattri
+91 9811618704
Dr Sunil Khattri MBBS, MS(General Surgery), LLB, is a Medical doctor and is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court of India and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Comments