A woman in her forties had been experiencing persistent abdominal pain. After a few consultations, she was admitted to a hospital and underwent surgery. During the procedure, doctors encountered dense adhesions around a mass in the pelvic region. The situation was complex. Colostomy was performed to relieve intestinal obstruction, and she was later discharged with advice to seek further treatment at a higher centre.
In the weeks that followed, her condition worsened. A second surgery at a different facility uncovered a piece of surgical sponge lodged near her intestine—allegedly left behind during the initial procedure. The foreign object had constricted part of the intestine, triggering further complications and leading her to yet another hospital for advanced care.
Eventually, she passed away after multiple surgeries and prolonged hospitalization.
Her family filed a complaint, alleging negligence and claiming that the retained sponge caused her death. The first court reviewed the medical history and testimonies and found fault with the initial surgical team, awarding compensation. It accepted that the sponge incident contributed to the deterioration in her condition and ultimately led to her demise.
But the case didn’t end there.
On appeal, the higher commission re-examined all documents, cross-referenced multiple medical reports, and scrutinized claims about sponge management during surgery. It found that the initial allegations weren’t supported by conclusive evidence. There was no X-ray, no documented record from the follow-up hospital, no surgical notes confirming the presence of a retained sponge. Even the supposed letter from the second surgeon referencing the sponge lacked corroborative support.
Furthermore, final medical opinions concluded that her death was due to renal failure and septic complications arising from repeated surgeries—not from any single incident or overlooked item during the initial procedure.
The commission overturned the earlier verdict, concluding that negligence could not be legally established. Clinical complexity and adverse outcomes alone, it said, do not amount to culpability without demonstrable error. The compensation was rescinded, and the matter was closed.
Source : Order pronounced by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 20th May, 2025.