Rajasthan Govt Admits Medical Negligence Deaths, Disciplinary Action Still Pending
In a formal reply submitted before the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly, the state health department has acknowledged that 14 patients died due to medical negligence in government hospitals, while no compensation has been paid in any of these cases and disciplinary action remains incomplete in most of them.
The disclosure, reported by Times of India , was made in response to a question raised by Pratap Singh Singhvi , a BJP MLA, who sought details on deaths caused by medical negligence and the action taken against responsible staff. The reply pertains to fatalities that occurred between January 2023 and December 2025 due to lapses by hospital staff across Rajasthan.
Statewide Negligence Deaths and Administrative Delay
According to the Assembly reply, 12 deaths occurred due to negligence by hospital staff across Rajasthan, while two additional deaths were caused by transfusion of the wrong blood group at Sawai Man Singh Hospital in Jaipur.
Despite acknowledging these fatalities, the health department stated that no compensation has been disbursed in any of the negligence related deaths. In most cases, disciplinary proceedings against identified staff are still pending or described as “in progress”, indicating prolonged administrative delay even after confirmed patient deaths.
As analysed by Medical Drafts, such delays raise serious medico legal concerns, particularly when negligence has already been officially admitted.
Wrong Blood Transfusion Deaths at SMS Hospital
In its district wise reply, the department identified two deaths caused by wrong blood group transfusion at SMS Hospital.
The first victim was 23 year old Sachin Sharma from Dausa, who died on February 23, 2024, after being admitted as a road accident victim under the trauma and orthopaedics department.
The second victim was 23 year old Chaina Devi from Badagaon, Tonk, who died in May 2025 while on ventilator support in the medicine department.
In Sachin Sharma’s case, the state government stated that disciplinary action had been initiated. However, for Chaina Devi’s death, the Assembly reply did not mention any action against staff, despite attributing the death to wrong blood transfusion.
Doctors and Staff Against Whom Action Was Taken
The Assembly reply revealed that charge sheets under CCA Rule 16 were issued on March 7, 2024, against the following staff members in connection with negligence and wrong transfusion cases at SMS Hospital:
• Dr Daulatram, then first year resident in the transfusion medicine department
• Dr Rishabh Chalana, then first year resident in the orthopaedics department
• Ashok Kumar Verma, nursing officer, Polytrauma Ward No. 113, SMS Hospital
Additionally, the reply stated that one doctor has been suspended, though the name of the suspended doctor was not disclosed in the Assembly response.
The department also informed that action has been initiated against 34 staff members linked to such incidents, but case wise proceedings remain incomplete in most matters.
What Is CCA Rule 16
CCA Rule 16 refers to Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which deals with minor penalty proceedings against government employees.
Under CCA Rule 16:
• The accused employee is issued a charge sheet
• An explanation is sought without a full scale departmental inquiry
• Penalties may include censure, withholding of increments, or minor financial penalties
• It does not involve a regular inquiry or major punishments like dismissal
From a medico legal standpoint, invoking Rule 16 in cases involving patient deaths is often criticised, as it limits the severity of disciplinary consequences.
No Compensation and No Closure
For the 12 negligence related deaths across the state, the health department admitted that disciplinary action in nine cases is still ongoing, while compensation has not been paid in any case.
The department also clarified that no deaths were reported due to fake or substandard medicines during the same period.
As highlighted by Medical Drafts, official acknowledgment of negligence without timely compensation or completed disciplinary proceedings reflects systemic failure rather than isolated clinical error.
Acknowledged Cases May Represent Only a Fraction of the Reality
While the health department has officially acknowledged 14 deaths due to medical negligence, this number is widely believed to represent only a small fraction of actual incidents occurring within the public healthcare system. Medical negligence, particularly in government hospitals, often goes unreported or undocumented, not because lapses do not occur, but because patients’ families face significant barriers in raising complaints.
Many affected families lack awareness of grievance redressal mechanisms or medico legal procedures, while others are discouraged by the complexity, cost, and prolonged nature of legal processes. In several cases, relatives are informally reassured, advised against escalation, or persuaded to accept explanations without written acknowledgment. For economically or socially vulnerable families, pursuing accountability can feel intimidating or futile.
Additionally, internal hospital inquiries do not always translate into transparent public records, and adverse events may be classified under broad medical complications rather than examined through a negligence lens. The absence of mandatory reporting systems for serious medical errors further contributes to underrepresentation in official data.
As a result, the deaths acknowledged in the Assembly likely reflect only those cases that progressed far enough to reach formal scrutiny. Without independent reporting mechanisms, time bound inquiries, and assured protection for complainants, a significant proportion of medical negligence cases risk remaining invisible within the system.
The Larger Medicolegal Question
The Assembly disclosure raises serious questions about accountability within the public healthcare system. When deaths due to negligence are officially admitted, yet compensation is denied and disciplinary action remains unfinished, it exposes gaps in patient safety enforcement and institutional responsibility.
This is not merely an administrative issue. It is a reminder that medical negligence carries legal, ethical, and human consequences, all of which demand transparent inquiry, proportionate punishment, and timely justice.
