A patient who complained of upper back pain at a hospital died within hours after collapsing at a nearby training centre. His family alleged that doctors had mistaken an evolving cardiac emergency for simple muscular pain. But the Commission found the case turned on a different question altogether: what happens when a patient declines the very treatment being advised?

The patient, an Additional District Judge attending an official training programme, was rushed to the hospital after developing sudden pain early in the morning. On examination, the treating physician recorded his blood pressure and pulse, performed an ECG, and advised hospital admission along with a cardiology consultation and further cardiac investigations. Instead of staying back, however, the patient chose to leave and returned to his training programme. About an hour later, he collapsed and was rushed back to the same hospital, where despite intensive resuscitation, he could not be revived.

A breast cancer survivor was referred for evaluation and treatment of suspected tuberculosis after investigations showed no malignant cells but raised the possibility of TB. Months later, when recurrent cancer was diagnosed, the family alleged that the delay had cost the patient valuable treatment time. The Commission, however, viewed the case through the lens of clinical judgment rather than hindsight.

The patient had remained under oncological care for nearly a decade following treatment for breast cancer. During follow-up, investigations revealed enlarged lymph nodes, but the cytology report suggested granulomatous lymphadenitis with no evidence of malignant cells. Acting on those findings, the treating oncologist referred her to a physician specialising in tuberculosis, after which she underwent treatment at a dedicated TB facility.

A piles surgery followed by a patient's death led to criminal proceedings against an anaesthetist who had completed her duty hours several hours before the fatal event. The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a doctor could be criminally prosecuted for an alleged procedural lapse committed later by hospital staff.

The patient had undergone surgery and was shifted to the post-operative ward. Later that evening, he complained of severe pain. According to the prosecution, the senior anaesthetist, who was no longer on duty, advised administration of an epidural analgesic over the phone instead of personally attending the patient. The injection was administered by a staff nurse, following which the patient's condition deteriorated and he later died of acute coronary insufficiency.

A retired Defence veteran and CGHS beneficiary approached a hospital after a specialist advised immediate emergency admission for surgery. What followed was an anxious wait before he was finally accommodated, prompting allegations that the hospital had denied him timely care despite the urgency of his condition.

The patient had suffered a serious hand injury while abroad and, on returning to India, was advised urgent surgical intervention. When he reported to the empanelled hospital, the treating specialist recommended emergency admission with surgery planned for the very next morning. Instead of being admitted immediately, however, he was informed that no bed was available. It was only after the intervention of the Additional Director, CGHS, that he was first accommodated on an emergency trolley and later shifted to a regular bed before undergoing surgery as scheduled.

A billing dispute over a ₹2,500 diagnostic test eventually reached the Supreme Court, raising an important medico-legal question: when does an incorrect hospital bill become a criminal offence?

The patient had undergone successful surgery for a fractured femur and was discharged after treatment. Soon afterwards, the family noticed that the hospital bill included charges for an HRCT scan that had never been performed. They also alleged delay in receiving medical records and claimed hospital staff behaved improperly when the discrepancy was questioned.

An Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) beneficiary challenged a hospital's decision to initially treat her as a cash-paying patient despite her entitlement to cashless treatment. The dispute ultimately turned not on medical care, but on a simple administrative question: when does an ECHS beneficiary actually become eligible for cashless treatment?

The patient was admitted to an empanelled private hospital in a critical condition and underwent intensive treatment, including ventilator support. During the initial phase of admission, substantial payments were collected from the family. Nearly two weeks later, after the required ECHS referral slip was submitted, the hospital converted the patient from the cash category to the ECHS cashless category and revised the billing according to applicable CGHS rates.

An eye surgery that resulted in permanent loss of vision led to allegations of negligent treatment. But the State Consumer Commission drew a careful distinction between the surgery itself and what had happened before the patient ever entered the operating room.

The patient had consulted an ophthalmic surgeon for a vision-related problem and was advised surgery after being assured that the procedure was routine and carried a high rate of success.

Before the operation, she signed a standard consent form presented as a routine formality. Following surgery, however, she developed severe pain, redness, progressive visual deterioration, and ultimately lost vision in the operated eye despite undergoing further treatment elsewhere.