She wasn’t just any patient. She was a young doctor. She went in for a routine laparoscopy. She didn’t make it out alive.
Death came in under 90 minutes.
What followed was a courtroom autopsy of the hospital's systems — and ethics.
The patient was 27. Recently married. A medical graduate. Admitted to a private hospital for a diagnostic laparoscopy to evaluate pelvic pain.
Twelve fifteen — anaesthesia administered. One forty-five — she was declared dead.
The stated cause: Scoline (succinylcholine) anaphylaxis. Sudden. Rare. Lethal.
But the court wasn’t asked to examine the rarity of the reaction. It was asked to examine the readiness of the hospital. And that’s where the story turned.
The patient's weight was incorrectly entered as 38 kg — when it was 46.
Vital monitoring tools — like capnography — were absent.
The second dose of Scoline was given without clear documentation.
There was no informed consent mentioning the drug.
The patient’s family — also from the medical community — began asking questions. The answers were vague. The documentation, worse.
And then came the detail that shifted the case entirely:
A woman assisting in the operation theatre — who had signed as “Dr.” — turned out to have no medical qualification. She was an Ayurvedic student, not even enrolled at the hospital.
Yet there she was. In scrubs. Inside the OT.
Writing progress notes. Signing patient records.
The hospital said it had taken due care.
That the OT had oxygen, resuscitation, and backup.
That the reaction was unpredictable, and the doctors had done their best.
The court disagreed.
It accepted that the anaesthetist may not have committed active negligence — but found the institution guilty on multiple counts.
“Allowing a fake doctor inside the OT is not a lapse — it’s a deception.”
“The failure to document consent for a high-risk drug is serious.”
“Capnography is a modern-day standard — not an optional add-on.”
“The hospital’s conduct was lackadaisical, indifferent, and insensitive.”
And just like that — the case turned. Not on a failed procedure. But on failed systems.
Compensation awarded was ?1.25 crore. Because this wasn’t just a death. It was a collapse of every safeguard that was meant to prevent it.
The patient died on the OT table. But trust, transparency, and accountability flatlined long before her.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 6th March, 2024.