A knee replacement that should have restored mobility ended instead in amputation. Yet, when the case reached the consumer commission, the question wasn’t how tragic the outcome was, but whether the doctors had deviated from medical protocol. The court found they hadn’t.
The patient, an elderly woman with long-standing hypertension, diabetes, and hypothyroidism, underwent total knee replacement (TKR) for chronic arthritis. The surgery itself went smoothly, but within hours she complained of pain and numbness in her leg. Doctors immediately ordered a Doppler study and discovered a blood clot in the popliteal artery—a rare but recognised complication after TKR. A vascular surgery was carried out the same evening to remove the clot, and her blood flow improved.
Five days later, however, the problem returned. The leg again showed poor circulation, and the family insisted on transferring her to another hospital for specialist care. There, a repeat clot was found and amputation became unavoidable. The family alleged that the surgeons at the first hospital had failed to provide prompt care, causing irreversible tissue loss.
The hospital denied negligence, stating that the complication was promptly diagnosed and treated and that every step followed established post-operative protocol. It submitted affidavits from independent vascular and orthopaedic experts—including those from a government medical institute—confirming that the response and management were both appropriate. The hospital also produced a satisfaction letter signed by the patient’s attendants after discharge.
The Himachal Pradesh State Commission noted that the patient’s high-risk profile and systemic conditions significantly increased the likelihood of thrombosis. It accepted the medical evidence that arterial clot formation after TKR is rare but recognised, and that immediate corrective action had been taken. The Commission ruled that while the outcome was deeply unfortunate, no breach of duty or delay in response was established.
IML Insight
A bad outcome is not proof of a bad operation. Courts consistently recognise that known complications do not constitute negligence when doctors act promptly and follow accepted standards. This case is a reminder that in medicine, even when everything is done right, not everything ends right.
Source : Order pronounced by Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 25th August, 20