Case Overview

In a recent medico-legal ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in India directed a doctor from West Bengal to pay Rs 2.5 lakh (2.5 lac) in compensation to a patient due to a deficiency in treatment for Tinea corporis (commonly known as ringworm, a fungal skin infection). Importantly, the court explicitly ruled that there was no medical negligence on the doctor’s part, but the compensation was awarded for inadequate follow-up and failure to administer corrective antifungal medications promptly. This case highlights how consumer courts in India address service deficiencies in healthcare under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, even without proving gross negligence.

The judgment was delivered in late November 2025, making it a timely development as of December 2025.

Background of the Case

• Patient’s Complaint: The patient approached the doctor on January 5, 2019, with symptoms of a skin rash later diagnosed as Tinea corporis. The doctor prescribed Tenacort-40 (a topical steroid) but did not provide antifungal treatment, which is the standard for fungal infections. The condition worsened, leading to further rashes and consultations at Narayana Hospital, where steroids were implicated in exacerbating the issue.
• Initial Proceedings: The case began in the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). The doctor refused to receive notices, resulting in an ex-parte (one-sided) hearing. The SCDRC awarded Rs 5 lakh in damages plus Rs 10,000 in litigation costs, finding a service deficiency.
• Appeal to NCDRC: The doctor appealed to the NCDRC, arguing no negligence occurred. The patient had pre-existing Tinea corporis, and the steroid prescription did not cause systemic spread of rashes, contrary to Narayana Hospital’s opinion.

Key Findings by NCDRC

• No Negligence Established: The commission noted that Tinea corporis was already present before treatment. The steroid (Tenacort-40) had no proven impact on controlling the infection, and there was no evidence of injected steroids contributing to complications. The diagnosis of steroid-induced rashes was not substantiated.
• Deficiency in Service: Despite no negligence, the court found a “deficit in the administration of corrective medicines.” The doctor failed to prescribe or follow up with appropriate antifungal drugs (e.g., oral or topical antifungals like terbinafine or clotrimazole), allowing the infection to persist.
• Compensation Reduction: The NCDRC set aside the SCDRC’s Rs 5 lakh + Rs 10,000 order and reduced it to Rs 2.5 lakh for the treatment shortfall. This amount accounts for the patient’s suffering, additional medical costs, and mental agony, but reflects the limited scope of the deficiency.
• Rationale: Courts apply the “Bolam Test” for negligence (whether the action aligns with accepted medical practice). Here, the steroid use was not negligent, but the lack of targeted antifungal therapy constituted a service gap under consumer law.

Legal Context in West Bengal

• Governing Laws: This falls under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, treating medical services as a “service” for consumer disputes. Complaints can be filed in District Forums (up to Rs 50 lakh claims), State Commissions (Rs 50 lakh to Rs 2 crore), or NCDRC (above Rs 2 crore). No negligence means no criminal liability under IPC Section 304A (now BNS Section 106(1) for rash/negligent acts causing death), but civil compensation is possible for deficiencies.
• West Bengal Specifics: The state has the West Bengal Clinical Establishments (Registration, Supervision, and Regulation) Act, 2017, which mandates compensation for negligence-related injuries:
• Up to Rs 3 lakh for simple injuries.
• Up to Rs 5 lakh for grievous injuries.
• Minimum Rs 10 lakh (up to Rs 50 lakh max) for death.
  Violations can attract fines up to Rs 10 lakh or imprisonment up to 3 years. However, this case was handled via consumer courts, not the state act, as it involved a private practitioner.
• Broader Trends: In West Bengal, medical negligence claims often face delays, with victims struggling against private entities. About 15% of complaints are filed by doctors themselves for support. Nationally, courts award averages of Rs 8-10 lakh in negligence cases, but reductions like this emphasize evidence-based rulings.

Implications

This ruling underscores the importance of comprehensive treatment protocols for fungal infections like Tinea corporis, where antifungals are essential to prevent spread. For doctors, it serves as a reminder to document diagnoses thoroughly and ensure follow-up, even if initial prescriptions align with standards. Patients in West Bengal can approach consumer forums for quicker redressal (2-year limitation from incident), but success hinges on medical records.

For full judgment details, refer to the NCDRC order (likely available on the official NCDRC website under recent consumer disputes). If you need assistance filing a similar complaint or more case law, provide additional details.