A patient who underwent hip surgery and later required a second operation alleged that the first treating doctors had worsened the fracture by attempting to insert an oversized prosthesis. The case eventually turned less on what was suspected and more on what could actually be proved.
After suffering a fracture of the femoral neck, the patient underwent surgery at a local hospital where the fractured femoral head was removed. According to the treating doctors, a suitable custom prosthesis was not immediately available and the patient was advised referral to a higher centre for definitive implantation after an appropriate interval.
The patient later underwent another surgery elsewhere.
It was alleged that the first surgical team had tried to insert an improperly sized implant, causing further fractures in the femur and leading to additional pain, expense, and disability. The foundation of this allegation was an alleged opinion attributed to the second surgeon.
But when the evidence came on record, the narrative weakened.
The affidavit of the second surgeon did not support the accusation of negligence. In fact, he specifically stated that no prosthesis was seen at the operative site. Beyond this, no expert evidence or medical material was produced to establish that the earlier surgery had been performed below accepted standards.
The Commission noted that repeat surgery, complications, or prolonged suffering may raise suspicion, but suspicion alone cannot substitute proof.
Relying on settled Supreme Court principles, it reiterated that medicine cannot be judged merely because treatment fails or recovery becomes difficult. Unless there is strong medical evidence pointing to a breach that no reasonably competent doctor would commit, negligence cannot be inferred retrospectively from the outcome alone.
The complaint was accordingly dismissed.
The ruling reinforces a recurring medico-legal principle: in surgical litigation, complications may create questions, but courts still require evidence before they see negligence clearly.
Source: Order pronounced by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 26th February, 2026.
