The case arose from a complex brain surgery planned after imaging revealed a sizeable tumour compressing critical structures. The patient was admitted, investigations were completed, consent was taken after explaining risks, and surgery was undertaken by a specialised team. During the operation, the surgeons encountered severe swelling in the brain tissue. Continuing the procedure any further, they recorded, would have risked catastrophic injury or even death. The operation was therefore consciously abandoned after partial tumour removal, with clear documentation noting the reason for stopping and advising further reassessment at a later stage.

After discharge, follow-up imaging showed that a significant portion of the tumour remained. The patient subsequently underwent another surgery at a different centre and then approached the consumer forum alleging that the first surgery was either ineffective or falsely projected as successful. It was claimed that stating “partial removal” amounted to misrepresentation and that abandoning the procedure itself reflected medical negligence.

A patient was admitted with abdominal pain and diagnosed with gallbladder stones. Surgery to remove the gallbladder was performed without complication, and the patient was discharged with post-operative advice. On the face of it, the surgical intervention itself raised no red flags. The trouble began after discharge.

As per standard protocol, the removed gallbladder should have been immediately preserved and sent for histopathological examination. Instead, the specimen was allowed to leave the hospital with the patient and reached the diagnostic centre much later. When the report eventually confirmed gallbladder cancer, valuable time had already been lost.

A critically injured patient was shifted to a super-specialty hospital after a road accident and placed under intensive neuro-care. Over the next few days, the treating team continued ventilatory support and ICU management, repeatedly informing the family that the patient remained critical but alive. Treatment charges continued to be raised and collected during this period.

The controversy arose after the patient was formally declared dead and the body sent for post-mortem. The post-mortem report recorded findings suggesting that death had occurred much earlier than the time disclosed by the hospital. Indicators such as advanced post-mortem changes and absence of rigor mortis were inconsistent with the hospital’s claim that death occurred only shortly before examination.

A patient with long-standing sinus complaints underwent surgery after clinical evaluation and investigations suggested chronic maxillary sinus disease. The procedure was carried out with consent, and no immediate intra-operative complication was recorded.

Soon after surgery, the patient developed swelling around one eye along with restricted eyelid and eyeball movement. When the condition failed to improve, the patient was referred to a higher centre, where CT imaging showed post-surgical bony defects in the sinus with air tracking into the orbital region. Over time, the affected eye suffered permanent damage.

A young patient approached a tertiary care hospital with long-standing unilateral nasal obstruction and discharge. After a brief clinical examination, the treating ENT surgeon diagnosed a nasal polyp and advised surgical removal, assuring the patient and family that it was a routine, low-risk procedure. The surgery was performed the very next day.

What followed immediately after the operation, however, was anything but routine. The patient developed severe and persistent headaches within hours. A CT scan conducted post-operatively revealed subarachnoid haemorrhage — a serious intracranial bleed. Despite this finding, the patient continued to be managed conservatively at the same hospital over the next several days, with repeated scans showing no meaningful improvement. It was only later, after an MRI was obtained elsewhere, that a skull-base defect with herniation of brain tissue into the nasal cavity was identified, necessitating neurosurgical intervention at another centre.

A woman was admitted for her second delivery and underwent a caesarean section along with sterilisation. She was discharged after surgery, but from the very beginning complained of persistent abdominal pain and discomfort at the surgical site. These complaints were repeatedly downplayed as routine post-operative symptoms, and she was reassured with pain medication and advice for rest.

Over the following weeks, her condition worsened. Fever developed, pain persisted, and discharge appeared at the surgical wound. Despite multiple consultations, the treating doctor continued to attribute the symptoms to minor infection or urinary issues, prescribing medicines and advising bed rest. Even when the patient was readmitted, the focus remained on wound care and drainage, without identifying the underlying cause.

The case concerned a patient who underwent laparoscopic surgery for removal of a large kidney stone detected on imaging. Following admission and surgery, the discharge summary recorded that the stones had been removed. However, subsequent imaging showed that a smaller residual stone remained. The patient continued to experience discomfort and, over time, required further treatment at another medical centre. Alleging that the surgery had been incomplete and that the discharge summary was misleading, the patient approached the consumer forum claiming medical negligence and deficiency in service.

The patient approached the doctor with ear pain and was advised to undergo tympanoplasty. Before the procedure, anesthesia was first injected into his hand — which soon caused swelling and redness. His family immediately alerted the doctor, but it was dismissed as a routine reaction. A second anesthesia dose was given behind the ear and surgery proceeded as planned. He was discharged the next day.

Over the week that followed, his hand continued to swell, pain increased and fever began. He kept returning to the same doctor, but each time he was reassured and sent home. Only when his condition became critical was he shifted to a higher centre — where he was diagnosed with necrotizing fasciitis, linked to xylocaine hypersensitivity.

A patient in the final month of pregnancy was admitted to a private nursing home after being assured that normal delivery and emergency facilities were available. Delivery took place the same afternoon without apparent complications. But within two hours, heavy postpartum bleeding began — and no gynecologist, specialist, or equipped operation theatre was available on-site.

According to the treatment records and enquiry reports, this was the most critical window. A district hospital located just 10–15 minutes away could have handled the emergency, but no referral was made until it was too late. By the time the situation was recognized as severe, the patient collapsed and could not be revived.

A patient who underwent spinal surgery later discovered that a fragment of a metallic screw had been left lodged in his body. What deepened the problem wasn’t the fragment itself, but the silence that followed it.

After experiencing post-surgical complications, the patient learned — through radiological scans and Right to Information (RTI) applications — that a small piece of surgical metal had been left behind during the operation. The discharge summary issued by the hospital made no mention of this fact. Nor were the operative notes made available until much later.