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.

A 39-year-old patient was brought to a private hospital with recurring fever, headache and a seizure episode. Once admitted, a CT scan of the brain was conducted, revealing an extra-axial lesion in the posterior fossa — an indicator that further evaluation through MRI might have been necessary. The complainant’s argument was simple: the presence of such a finding should have immediately prompted an MRI and referral to a specialised center. That did not happen.

A four-month-old infant was admitted to the ICU of a private hospital with pneumonia and sepsis. The attending doctor assured the parents that the condition was under control, and with that assurance, they left the child at the hospital overnight.

But when they were called back at 4 AM, the infant was already on ventilator support and unresponsive. The crucial discovery during trial was that during those critical hours, the ICU was not manned by a qualified paediatric specialist. The hospital defended its treatment, stating that protocols were followed and the child was already in a critical state when admitted. However, the treatment records told another story — temperature and vitals were not monitored with required frequency, particularly between 11 PM and 2 AM when the child’s condition deteriorated.

Despite clear signs of cardiac risk, a young patient was denied urgent ICU care – not by lack of facility, but by waiting for consent.

A minor patient was admitted for nose bleeding — a condition initially treated routinely. But at 3 a.m., he complained of chest pain and uneasiness. From that moment, his condition steadily deteriorated. Yet he was only moved to the ICU four hours later — at 7 a.m.

A patient was brought in with serious complications and suspected multiple infections. The treating doctor believed that a biopsy would help identify the illness more precisely — but found that the patient’s condition was too unstable to undergo an invasive procedure immediately. Instead, the doctor decided to first treat the infection and attempt to stabilise the patient’s vitals before proceeding to a biopsy.

The complaint later alleged negligence, claiming that the delay in biopsy led to worsening of the patient’s condition and eventually death. It was argued that an earlier biopsy could have helped arrive at a definitive diagnosis and guided treatment better.