Man declared HIV positive by AIIMS, found negative after retest at another hospital; Consumer commission orders AIIMS Risihikesh to pay Rs 60,000

Man declared HIV positive by AIIMS Rishikesh was subsequently found to be HIV negative when he sought a second opinion at another hospital. The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a medical negligence ruling against AIIMS Rishikesh, affirming an order directing it to pay Rs 60,000 in compensation for the erroneous diagnosis and the suffering it caused.

The commission pronounced its order on 17 August 2026, dismissing an appeal filed by AIIMS Rishikesh, formally known as Akhil Bhartiya Aayurvigyan Sansthan, against a 2019 district commission ruling that had first held it liable.

Also read: Man takes a DNA test, finds out he isn't the child's father; files for divorce but wife refuses official test; Supreme Court allows the paternity test


What happened to the patient at AIIMS Rishikesh?

The patient fell ill in July 2014 and first consulted a local doctor in Haridwar on 15 July 2014. That doctor, after examination, referred him to a higher centre for further treatment. He was admitted to AIIMS Rishikesh the same day and discharged on 16 July 2014.

The discharge summary issued by AIIMS Rishikesh recorded him as HIV positive. The commission noted that the treating doctor had repeatedly recorded the HIV positive status across the discharge sheet and also advised him to seek further management of HIV.

Following the discharge, the patient got himself re-examined at Shri Guru Ram Rai Institute of Medical and Health Sciences and Shri Mahant Indiresh Hospital in Dehradun. Both institutions found him HIV negative.

He then filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service by AIIMS Rishikesh, and sought Rs 50,000 in compensation for medical expenses and the mental and physical agony suffered.

Was the HIV positive diagnosis actually made by AIIMS Rishikesh?

AIIMS Rishikesh, in its defence before both the district commission and later in appeal before the state commission, contended that it did not have an integrated counselling and testing centre for HIV at the relevant time and that therefore no HIV test was conducted and no HIV positive diagnosis was made by it.

The state commission rejected this contention, pointing to AIIMS Rishikesh's own medical records. The commission noted that the discharge summary, produced as evidence in the case, specifically recorded the patient as HIV positive and advised further HIV management. It held that if no HIV test had been conducted and no diagnosis made, there was no occasion for the treating doctor to have repeatedly recorded the patient as HIV positive in the official discharge sheet.

The commission stated that the contention of AIIMS Rishikesh was belied by its own medical records.

What did the commission say about HIV misdiagnosis and medical negligence?

The commission applied the Supreme Court's established three-part test for medical negligence, requiring proof of a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and consequential injury or damage to the patient.

On the first element, the commission found no dispute that AIIMS Rishikesh owed a duty of care to the patient.

On the second, it held that the repeated recording of an HIV positive status in official medical records, without producing any supporting diagnostic material to justify that entry, constituted a clear breach of that duty. The commission stated that HIV is a disease carrying serious medical, social, and psychological implications and that a diagnosis of such a condition must necessarily be made with utmost care and supported by appropriate medical evidence. AIIMS Rishikesh, it said, failed to establish that the diagnosis recorded in its discharge sheet was based on accepted medical protocol.

On the third element, the commission found that as a consequence of the erroneous recording, the patient suffered mental agony, social stigma, and emotional distress.

The commission held that all three ingredients required to establish medical negligence were satisfied.

Can patients treated at AIIMS approach a consumer commission?

AIIMS Rishikesh also argued before the commission that since it provides services at negligible or no charges, the patient did not qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint was therefore not maintainable.

The commission rejected this argument as well. It noted that records showed AIIMS Rishikesh had charged the patient Rs 270 towards investigation and other charges. It held that the services rendered were therefore not wholly free of charge.

The commission also cited a 1995 Supreme Court ruling in Indian Medical Association versus V.P. Shantha, which held that where a hospital charges for services, even partially, those services fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. It further referred to a National Commission ruling in All India Institute of Medical Sciences versus Mrs. Ayesha Begum, which applied the same principle specifically to AIIMS. On both grounds, the commission held the complaint was maintainable.

AIIMS Rishikesh Rs 60,000 compensation order

The state commission dismissed AIIMS Rishikesh's appeal and affirmed the district commission's 2019 order in full. AIIMS Rishikesh has been directed to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation and Rs 10,000 towards litigation costs, totalling Rs 60,000.

The original order had stipulated that failure to pay within one month would attract interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the complaint until actual payment.

Check the case judgement here: