Nulife Hospital Medical Negligence Case: Court Summons Doctor | Impact

Court Summons in Nulife Hospital Case Marks Turning Point

In a significant development in the long-running Nulife Hospital medical negligence case, a Delhi court has summoned the treating doctor accused of mishandling the delivery of Baby Aayansh — a child who was born with severe brain damage and later died in December 2023. The summons, issued by the Rohini District Court earlier this week, directs Dr. Shakuntala Kumar to appear before it on 16 April 2026 in connection with allegations that a miscalculation of the delivery date and premature induction of labour led to irreversible harm to the infant.

The order comes almost six years after the child’s father, Dr Alok Kumar, first approached authorities claiming gross negligence at Nulife Hospital, Delhi. The court, while taking cognisance of the protest petition filed by the complainant in October 2023, observed that there was enough material on record to warrant the doctor’s personal appearance and further proceedings.

The development validates a series of findings that independent experts and disciplinary bodies had already raised — and which The Probe has consistently reported since May 2023.

What Happened to Baby Aayansh?

Baby Aayansh was born in 2018 at Nulife Hospital, a private facility in northwest Delhi, after what was expected to be a routine delivery. His parents had been assured that the pregnancy was healthy and progressing normally.

However, soon after birth, the baby was found to be in critical condition — deprived of oxygen, unable to cry, and diagnosed with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, a form of brain injury caused by lack of oxygen during delivery. Despite intensive neonatal care, Aayansh was left with severe developmental disabilities, unable to walk or speak.

Over time, his parents began questioning how a normal pregnancy could end in such a catastrophic outcome. When they examined the hospital’s medical records, they noticed that the expected date of delivery (EDD) recorded by the treating doctor differed from what multiple ultrasound reports had earlier indicated.

According to the family, this discrepancy of nearly a month meant that labour was induced far earlier than necessary — a decision they allege was central to the tragedy that unfolded.

Allegations by the Parents

Dr Alok Kumar, the father of Baby Aayansh, has accused the Nulife Hospital obstetrician of multiple acts of medical negligence. The key allegations include:

1. Miscalculation of delivery date: Despite earlier ultrasound scans confirming a later EDD, the doctor allegedly advanced the date by nearly four weeks without clinical justification.

2. Unnecessary induction of labour: Labour was reportedly induced using oxytocin, even though there were no signs of fetal distress or medical complications requiring such intervention.

3. Failure to respond to fetal distress: When the baby’s heart rate dropped, the family alleges that the response was delayed and inadequate, worsening oxygen deprivation.

4. Manipulation of medical records: The family has alleged inconsistencies in case notes and labour room entries, raising suspicion of retrospective alterations.

The cumulative effect of these actions, the family says, led to irreversible brain injury to their newborn.

Dr Kumar maintains that had the pregnancy been allowed to continue to term, his son might have been born healthy. “This was not fate,” he said in an interview to The Probe. “This was preventable. The signs were ignored, and my child is a victim of medical negligence and he paid the price with his life.”

Legal Journey So Far

The Nulife Hospital case has passed through multiple layers of investigation and adjudication since 2020. The Delhi Medical Council (DMC) was the first to examine the complaint. After reviewing expert opinions, it found prima facie evidence of medical negligence and recommended a 90-day suspension of the doctor’s licence.

Unsatisfied with what he called a “token penalty,” Dr Kumar escalated the matter to the National Medical Commission (NMC) and filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Meanwhile, he also approached the Delhi Police, seeking a criminal investigation under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code for causing death by negligence.

In 2022, an AIIMS medical board — constituted at the request of NCDRC — reaffirmed that the EDD had indeed been miscalculated. The report stated that the baby was “delivered preterm without medical indication,” and that “standard obstetric practices were not followed.” Despite these findings, the police initially filed a closure report, citing lack of conclusive criminal intent.

Dr Kumar then filed a protest petition challenging the closure. After prolonged hearings, the Rohini District Court this year set aside the police closure report and issued summons to the doctor allegedly involved in the case. 

A Father’s Relentless Fight for Justice

Even after Baby Aayansh’s death in December 2023, Dr Kumar’s pursuit of accountability has not waned. He continues to represent his late son in every legal forum possible.

“Justice for Aayansh is justice for many parents who never get heard,” he says quietly. “If doctors can alter basic clinical data and get away with it, no patient is safe.”

Since The Probe first chronicled his story in May 2023, Dr Kumar has become a symbol of perseverance against institutional inertia. His petitioning led to questions in professional bodies and rekindled national debate on the absence of a clear medical negligence framework in India.

Systemic Issues Highlighted by the Case

Baby Aayansh’s case also brings to light long-standing structural gaps in how matters of medical negligence are handled in India. Nearly two decades after the Supreme Court’s landmark Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) judgment — which made it harder to hold doctors criminally liable unless gross negligence or reckless conduct is proved — the country still lacks a uniform standard to distinguish error from culpability.

Experts say this vacuum leaves families like the Kumars trapped in years of procedural delays. Civil, consumer, and criminal proceedings often run parallel — each requiring separate evidence and timelines. For doctors, the lack of clear thresholds also means fear of harassment even in genuine complications, while for patients, accountability remains distant.

Legal scholars note that the Nulife Hospital case could become a reference point for future jurisprudence, as it directly raises the question of what constitutes “gross” versus “simple” negligence in obstetric care.