An elderly patient underwent total hip replacement, was shifted to ICU after surgery, and died the following day after sudden respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. The family alleged that warning signs had been ignored and specialist cardiac support was absent when it mattered most.

According to the complaint, the hospital had been informed of the patient’s cardiac history and pacemaker status, yet no heart specialist was present during surgery or during the later emergency in ICU.

A patient who underwent hip surgery and later required a second operation claimed that errors during the first procedure had worsened the fracture and caused fresh damage.

According to the complaint, doctors had attempted to use an oversized implant, resulting in additional injury to the femur. The patient later sought treatment at a higher centre, incurred further expense, and alleged that the need for repeat surgery itself reflected negligence.

A patient who underwent spinal surgery for persistent leg pain found himself in deeper trouble after the operation. The pain continued, sensation worsened, and his condition deteriorated to the point where further treatment became unavoidable.

The surgeon defended the outcome by pointing to a known medical reality: some spine patients require repeat procedures, and recovery may take time. Re-operation, it was argued, does not automatically mean negligence.

But the records told a sterner story.

A child brought to hospital in the middle of the night with raging fever, seizures, and loss of consciousness later died after referral to a higher centre. The grief was undeniable. The legal question was whether negligence had been proved.

The family alleged that treatment was delayed, supervision during the night was inadequate, and the child was referred without proper medical support. It was further claimed that the patient had been left under the care of an unqualified person during crucial hours.

A hair restoration treatment that delivered no visible regrowth led to a substantial compensation claim, forcing the National Commission to examine a modern consumer question — when expectations fail, is that negligence?

The patient underwent three sessions of PRP therapy, a procedure commonly used to stimulate hair growth using concentrated platelets derived from the patient’s own blood. After completing treatment, he alleged that he had been promised assured results, subjected to pain, and misled about the nature and success of the procedure.

A child taken in for correction of an undescended testis emerged from surgery with the affected testicle removed. What followed was not just a complaint, but criminal prosecution against the operating surgeon.

The parents alleged that consent had been given only for orchidopexy, a procedure to reposition the testis, and not for orchidectomy, its removal. They further claimed that the consent form had later been altered to include the additional procedure.

A spinal surgery dispute turned on an issue more fundamental than surgical skill: what the patient was told before entering the operation theatre.

The patient underwent two procedures for cervical instability after presenting with neck pain, numbness, and neurological symptoms. While the surgeries themselves were not proven negligent, the aftermath was devastating. She was later assessed with 75% permanent disability and became dependent on a wheelchair for mobility.