An appendicectomy is among the most routine surgical procedures performed in hospitals. Yet when a patient continues to suffer persistent pain, repeated infections and multiple hospital admissions long after the surgery, the operation itself inevitably comes under scrutiny. In a recent decision, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that a hospital could not escape responsibility after a surgical mop left behind during an appendicectomy resulted in months of avoidable suffering for the patient.
The patient underwent an appendicectomy at Kesar Sal Hospital and was discharged a few days later. Instead of recovering, he repeatedly returned with severe abdominal pain, persistent pus discharge and bowel-related complications. Over the next several months, he underwent further procedures at the same hospital, including drainage of pus collections, investigations and repeated admissions. Despite these interventions, his symptoms continued unabated.
Eventually, he sought treatment at another hospital, where surgeons performed another operation. During the procedure, a surgical mop was found and removed. According to the patient, this retained foreign body had been the source of his prolonged pain, recurrent infections and repeated hospitalisations.
The hospital denied negligence on multiple grounds. It questioned the maintainability of the complaint, disputed the evidentiary value of the subsequent surgeon's opinion and maintained that no surgical mop had been left behind during the appendicectomy. It also argued that the treating surgeon had not been impleaded and therefore the hospital itself could not be held liable.
The Commission was not persuaded. Relying on the patient's prolonged postoperative course, contemporaneous medical records, statements of treating doctors, and the report of an expert committee constituted by B.J. Medical College, it concluded that a surgical mop had indeed been left inside the patient's abdomen during the original operation. The Commission observed that such an occurrence ordinarily does not happen when reasonable surgical care is exercised and invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, where the very nature of the event speaks for itself.
Having found negligence established, the Commission went a step further. It held that the hospital could not distance itself from the actions of its surgeon or operating team. When treatment is rendered through doctors and medical staff functioning under the hospital's care, the institution itself remains vicariously liable for negligent acts committed in the course of treatment.
Accordingly, the Commission set aside the earlier dismissal of the complaint and awarded compensation to the patient for the prolonged suffering caused by the retained surgical mop.
The decision reinforces an important principle of hospital administration: patients place their trust in institutions as much as in individual doctors. Consequently, when negligence occurs during treatment, a hospital cannot avoid responsibility by shifting the blame solely onto the treating surgeon. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, the institution remains answerable for the acts of the medical professionals through whom it delivers care.
Source: Order pronounced by Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 16th June, 2026.
