This is perhaps one of those rare bizarre cases that mars the reputation of entire healthcare delivery system.

A patient was taken to the hospital with complain of severe pain in the lower abdominal area with bouts of vomiting and fever for four days. Ultrasound and CT scan of whole abdomen were done that suggested appendix problem.

The patient, with a bad obstetric history, was due to deliver her second child. She was admitted at the hospital. Tests reported abnormal epithelial cells and motile bacteria. The doctor performed LSCS, a healthy baby girl was delivered.

The mother’s condition deteriorated soon thereafter. She developed high blood pressure and her urine output stopped completely. Eventually, the critical patient was shifted to a higher centre for better management.

In the day and age of reviews and comments about services on social medias, it is not surprising to see that even healthcare fraternity is finding itself marred in controversies. The law however, does not consider such instances, as long as it is not relevant to the case.

An orthopaedic surgeon had performed total knee replacement (TKR). The patient was discharged after few days. However, the pain that existed pre-operatively returned after a month or so.

This is perhaps one of the more important rulings from National Consumer Commission, as it could set precedence for similar instances in future.

Does the term ‘package’ – often proposed by hospitals at the time of patient’s admission – necessarily imply that it would cover the entire cost of treatment? The top Consumer Court has ruled in the affirmative.

A rural lady was taken to the hospital with complaint of heart ailments. She was diagnosed with myocardial infraction and cardiogenic shock. The hospital presented a package of INR 85,000 which was duly paid. An additional amount of INR 2,00,000 was demanded after a few hours which was also deposited.

Unfortunately, the patient died after four days.

Referring patients to another hospital / higher centre, especially if emergency diagnostic facilities are not available, is a basic protocol expected from every hospital. Surprisingly, a hospital in this case did not follow it and was held negligent.

The patient sustained severe injuries in a road accident. He was rushed to the hospital where a team of doctors sprung into action. There was severe vascular compromise, and hence patient was shifted to another hospital for better management.

The patient delivered a healthy baby girl at a hospital under care of her doctor. She experienced stomach pain post-operatively, hence consulted the doctor. The doctor prescribed medicines, but did not perform any diagnostic tests to ascertain reason for stomach pain.

The patient continued to experience the pain for a very long time. An ultrasound scan was performed which reported adhesions at the anterior abdominal wall, at the incision site. Eventually, the patient underwent another corrective surgery performed by another doctor.

The perks and perils of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, et al are well known. In this unfortunate case, only the fear of losing its credibility forced a hospital to admit a critical patient, albeit too late.

A pregnant woman due to deliver was taken to the hospital. She was denied admission citing COVID pandemic. She was then taken to a second hospital which also denied admission as her doctor had instructed to the hospital to not admit her there due to lack of relevant infrastructure.

Strangely though, the doctor did not visit the patient even once.