The patient was suffering from pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO) and consulted the doctor. She was admitted to the hospital for three days and was discharged thereafter.

The patient, an elderly woman, was admitted to a well-known hospital in serious condition. The family wanted to admit her in a private room, although her medical condition necessitated ICU care.

An eye-specialist performed cataract procedure in the left eye of a septuagenarian-patient. But his vision remained as blurry as it was prior to the procedure.

This is one of those many unfortunate instances where treatment’s undesirable outcome results in courtroom saga. What’s worse is that in most cases, such as this one, the allegations are without any substance.

The patient was diagnosed with Keratoconus and visited an eye-centre where a procedure was performed by the eye-specialist. The patient developed post-surgery infection in the left eye and visited a hospital for treatment.

In this case, the State Consumer Commission has ruled in favour of the defending pathology lab, stating that lab report can be proven false only if method adopted for another test is same and results are contradictory.

The gynaecologist performed hysterectomy after which patient developed vesico vaginal fistula (VVF). She was promptly referred to another doctor, but the patient decided to consult a doctor of her choice.

The patient was suffering from pyrexia of unknown origin (PUO) and consulted the doctor. She was admitted to the hospital for three days and was discharged thereafter.

The patient, an elderly woman, was admitted to a well-known hospital in serious condition. The family wanted to admit her in a private room, although her medical condition necessitated ICU care.

An eye-specialist performed cataract procedure in the left eye of a septuagenarian-patient. But his vision remained as blurry as it was prior to the procedure.