24 Maternal Deaths in Seven Months: NHRC Steps In, Seeks Accountability from UP Government Over Ghaziabad Hospital Tragedies

Commission flags serious human rights concerns over maternal mortality; seeks reports from Health Department and Ghaziabad DM within two weeks as over 3,000 high-risk pregnancies are identified

(Judicial Quest News Network)

New Delhi | November 5, 2026 – In a significant intervention raising serious questions over maternal healthcare, patient safety and the constitutional right to life, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), India, has taken Suo motu cognizance of the reported deaths of 24 women during pregnancy-related treatment or childbirth at government and private hospitals in Ghaziabad district of Uttar Pradesh between April and October 2026.

The Commission has viewed the reported deaths as a matter of serious concern, observing that, if the allegations contained in the media report are found to be true, they raise substantial issues concerning the violation of human rights.

Taking cognizance of the matter, the NHRC has issued notices to the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, directing them to submit detailed reports within two weeks.

The Commission’s intervention comes against the backdrop of disturbing figures disclosed in a Health Department report, which reportedly revealed that 24 women lost their lives while undergoing pregnancy-related treatment or during childbirth at different healthcare facilities across the district in the seven-month period.

Rajapur Records Highest Number of Maternal Deaths

According to the reported district-wise distribution, the Rajapur area accounted for the highest number of deaths, with eight women losing their lives. Loni and Bhojpur followed, recording five deaths each.

The nature and reported causes of these deaths have further intensified concerns regarding the availability, accessibility and adequacy of maternal healthcare services.

Of the 24 reported deaths, 10 women reportedly died due to excessive bleeding (haemorrhage), while three deaths were attributed to severe infections and another three to hypertension.

The remaining eight deaths were reportedly associated with other medical conditions, including anaemia, heart attacks, tuberculosis and brain tumours.

These figures raise important questions about the effectiveness of antenatal monitoring, timely medical intervention, emergency obstetric care, referral mechanisms and the preparedness of hospitals to manage high-risk pregnancies and childbirth-related complications.

Over 3,000 High-Risk Pregnancies Add to Healthcare Concerns

Adding another dimension to the matter, more than 3,000 pregnant women in Ghaziabad district have reportedly been identified as having high-risk pregnancies.

The identification of such a large number of high-risk cases underscores the importance of systematic medical supervision, regular antenatal check-ups, timely diagnosis of complications and access to specialised obstetric facilities.

Medical emergencies such as excessive bleeding, severe infections and pregnancy-induced hypertension can become life-threatening if not identified and managed promptly.

The reported fatalities therefore warrant a comprehensive examination of whether appropriate medical protocols were followed and whether timely treatment and emergency interventions were available.

Constitutional Right to Life and Human Rights Obligations

The NHRC’s intervention brings into focus the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing the protection of human life, dignity and access to healthcare.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, has been judicially interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass the right to health and timely medical treatment.

In Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal (1996), the Supreme Court held that failure on the part of a government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of emergency care can amount to a violation of Article 21. The judgment underscored the constitutional obligation of the State to preserve human life by ensuring adequate medical facilities.

Similarly, in Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), the Supreme Court emphasised that preservation of human life must receive paramount importance and that medical professionals have an obligation to provide immediate medical assistance in emergencies.

The relevant statutory framework also includes the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Under Section 2(1)(d), human rights encompass rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in international covenants and enforceable by courts in India.

Further, Section 12(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 empowers the NHRC to inquire, Suo motu or on a petition, into complaints of human rights violations or negligence in the prevention of such violations by public servants.

Under Section 13, the Commission enjoys powers relating to the summoning and examination of witnesses and the calling for relevant documents during an inquiry. Section 18 provides for recommendations and other measures upon completion of an inquiry, including recommendations concerning compensation, prosecution or other appropriate action, in accordance with the law.

The constitutional guarantees and statutory provisions provide an important framework for examining whether deficiencies in healthcare delivery, if established, have resulted in violations of the right to life and human dignity.

Accountability, Medical Negligence and Institutional Responsibility

The reported deaths also warrant an examination of whether any instances of medical negligence, professional misconduct, inadequate infrastructure or failure to follow established treatment protocols contributed to the fatalities.

However, the determination of medical negligence would require a case-specific assessment of medical records, treatment histories, clinical decisions, hospital facilities and expert medical opinion.

Where negligence is established, the applicable legal framework may include the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly Section 2(11), which defines deficiency in service, and Section 2(42), which defines services. Section 35 provides the mechanism for filing consumer complaints before the competent District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Depending upon the date of the incident and the facts established, criminal liability may also be examined under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Section 106(1), concerning causing death by negligence, where its statutory ingredients are satisfied.

The applicability of the provision would depend upon the evidence and the circumstances of each individual case.

NHRC Seeks Detailed Reports Within Two Weeks

By issuing notices to the senior-most administrative authority in the State Health Department and the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, the NHRC has sought an official account of the circumstances surrounding the reported fatalities.

The reports are expected to provide an opportunity to examine the facts behind the deaths, the medical and administrative response, and the measures adopted by the authorities to prevent further maternal fatalities.

The Commission’s action places the spotlight on an essential aspect of public administration the obligation to ensure that every pregnant woman receives timely, safe and appropriate medical care, irrespective of whether she approaches a government institution or a private hospital.

The matter also raises a broader question of institutional accountability in maternal healthcare. While every maternal death may involve complex medical circumstances, preventable deaths arising from delayed treatment, inadequate emergency facilities or systemic deficiencies demand serious scrutiny.