Post-operative infection is a recognised risk of orthopaedic surgery and, by itself, does not establish medical negligence. What the law expects, however, is that once a complication is recognised, it is managed promptly and appropriately. In a recent decision, the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that while the infection following a hip replacement surgery was not negligent, the delay in referring the patient for specialised care amounted to a deficiency in service.
An elderly woman underwent hip replacement surgery after sustaining a fracture of the neck of the femur. She was discharged in a satisfactory condition but returned repeatedly over the following weeks complaining of persistent and progressively worsening pain. Each time, she was reassured and treated with painkillers, calcium supplements and other medicines while being advised to continue follow-up.
As the symptoms persisted, investigations including a CRP test and X-ray revealed infection around the operated hip. Even after the infection became evident, conservative treatment continued. It was only after the patient's condition further deteriorated and she sought another opinion that the treating doctor referred her to a higher centre. By then, another orthopaedic surgeon advised revision surgery because the infection had progressed. Although the second operation was performed, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest a few days later and passed away.
The hospital defended the treatment by arguing that postoperative infection is a recognised complication that can occur despite adherence to accepted surgical standards. It further contended that the patient's eventual death resulted from cardiac arrest after the revision surgery performed elsewhere and therefore could not be attributed to the original treating team.
The Commission accepted that postoperative infection, in itself, is not proof of negligence. However, it found that once the patient's persistent pain, investigations and clinical condition pointed towards a serious infection, the treating doctor ought to have referred her to a higher centre much earlier instead of continuing conservative management for several weeks. The delay in escalating care, despite clear signs that the patient's condition was deteriorating, fell below the expected standard of medical practice.
Accordingly, the Commission upheld the finding of negligence against the hospital and the treating doctor while maintaining the compensation awarded by the District Commission.
The judgment underscores an important medico-legal principle: medicine does not demand that every complication be prevented, but it does require that recognised complications be acted upon without avoidable delay. A complication may be unavoidable, yet the failure to respond to it in time can itself constitute medical negligence.
Source: Order pronounced by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 15th January, 2026.
