India’s healthcare sector saw 65,000 medical negligence cases filed in 2025 across State High Courts, the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), signalling a sharp rise in litigation beyond consumer forums. The data was presented by Supreme Court advocate Mahendra Bajpai at the 18th Annual MedLegal Review held at Dr. DY Patil College of Law, Navi Mumbai, on February 6.
Bajpai said the focus of medical negligence litigation has shifted decisively away from clinical errors. Paperwork lapses, administrative failures and gaps in digital records are now increasingly triggering compensation awards and even criminal proceedings. “Every piece of paper, every digital record, is potential evidence,” he said.
Courts are no longer limiting scrutiny to surgical mistakes or misdiagnosis. ICU charts, consent forms, discharge summaries and administrative records are often decisive in establishing liability. Digital material—including audio recordings, mobile phone videos and CCTV footage—is now routinely accepted as primary evidence. Confidentiality breaches are also drawing closer judicial attention, with doctors held accountable for sharing patient information without consent. Telemedicine practices face heightened risk, as remote instructions are closely examined and, in some cases, initially treated as serious criminal liability before higher courts intervene.
Citing recent rulings, Bajpai said, “In one case, an audio clip of a 91-year-old pleading to go home influenced the outcome. In another, attendants’ mobile video showing a patient lying unattended after a fall led to liability. In a different matter, CCTV retention policies were contested, with higher courts siding with hospitals.”
Hospital administrators, too, are under greater scrutiny. Courts have clarified, however, that administrators can be held liable only if they directly authorise a wrongful act, ignore a foreseeable risk, or fail in duties that cannot be delegated. Telemedicine cases have further highlighted this distinction, with one matter seeing criminal charges quashed after higher courts stepped in.
Former Bombay High Court judge Justice M.L. Tahalyani pointed out that litigation is rising even as unqualified practitioners remain largely outside the legal net. “Quacks are not prosecuted because they are scattered in informal slums and cities, and when a case comes, the system struggles to respond as the quacks swiftly change their location,” he observed.
Another emerging trend is disputes where doctors themselves are patients. Courts have ruled that even in such cases, specialists must provide proper counselling and follow-up and cannot rely solely on consent forms to escape responsibility.
Bajpai also flagged prosecutions linked to statutory reporting obligations. “Doctors also face prosecution for failing to report pregnancies in minors, even when ages are misrepresented. In several matters, proceedings were quashed when records showed the patient was legally an adult. Judges have stressed that doctors should not be implicated unless there is a deliberate omission. Confidentiality disputes are gaining traction too, with courts reiterating that maintaining secrecy is the doctor’s duty and the patient’s right. Yet despite these protections, cases against doctors continue to rise in consumer courts, adding to the overall litigation burden.”
Dr. Shreekant Shetty, editor of Medical Law Cases for Doctors, said anxiety within the profession is growing. “Doctors are struggling with loopholes in the law. What was once considered a clinical judgment is now treated as negligence. The fear is not just of losing a case, but of reputational damage, criminal prosecution, and the sheer burden of defending oneself in multiple forums. There is also growing concern about disputes spilling onto social media, where narratives can be manipulated easily, especially with AI.”
Data from the government’s e-Jagriti consumer portal shows that by mid-November 2025, 1.35 lakh cases had been filed and 1.31 lakh disposed of across sectors including medical, insurance, banking, housing, electricity, finance and automobiles. Of these, 68,048 cases were filed during 2025.
“When compared with other sectors, medical disputes made only a small share of about 2.2%. But when cases from the High Courts, the Supreme Court, and the NCDRC are included, the number of medical disputes count to 65,000 in 2025, showing how consumer portal data underreports the true scale of litigation against doctors and hospitals,” Bajpai explained, adding, “Public trust in healthcare systems is fragile; courts must guard it without crushing the very hands that heal.”