A pregnant woman was treated by two BAMS-qualified doctors who prescribed Allopathic medicines during her pregnancy. Following post-delivery complications and the loss of the child, the question before the consumer fora was whether prescribing those medicines amounted to medical negligence.

The complainant alleged that the doctors were not qualified to prescribe Allopathic medicines or undertake her pregnancy-related treatment. The District Commission agreed, holding them liable and awarding ₹1 lakh compensation along with ₹5,000 in costs. The State Commission upheld the decision.

A root canal treatment performed in 2012 became the subject of a negligence complaint seven years later, after an X-ray revealed a broken instrument inside the treated tooth.

The patient had undergone RCT for pain in a lower molar. Following the procedure, the dentist advised an OPG because a periapical lesion was present. The patient did not undergo the advised investigation and did not return to the dentist for several years.

A patient approached a hospital with a history of heart disease and later alleged that he had been admitted for heart surgery. When that surgery was not performed and ₹90,922 was deducted from his ₹1 lakh advance, he alleged that the hospital had charged him for treatment it had never provided.

The hospital's records, however, told a different story.

A sonography centre faced legal proceedings after an inspection found deficiencies in the mandatory records maintained under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, commonly known as the PCPNDT Act.

The proceedings concerned alleged violations of the Act and Rules, including deficiencies and inaccuracies in Form F, the prescribed record for prenatal diagnostic procedures.

A patient in advanced labour arrived at a nursing home with severe anaemia and a condition already considered critical. What followed raised a difficult medico-legal question: when a facility has limited resources, does continuing care amount to negligence, or does the decision to stabilise and refer fall within clinical judgment?

The woman was an un-booked patient who had reportedly been handled earlier by an untrained birth attendant. At the nursing home, her severe anaemia was recognised and the family was advised to arrange blood and shift her to a higher centre.

An orthopaedic surgery was scheduled for a patient with an elbow injury. Before the surgery could take place, the patient allegedly developed hypoxia following administration of anaesthesia and died four days later.

His wife alleged that the operating doctor had administered an incorrect dose of anaesthesia. The doctor disputed this, maintaining that the anaesthesia had been administered by another doctor who had assisted with the proposed procedure.

That doctor, however, denied being present or participating in the procedure.

A cancer diagnosis was challenged years later. New pathology reports suggested a different HER-2 status. The family argued that the original diagnosis had led to inappropriate treatment. But when the dispute reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the crucial question was whether the alleged diagnostic error could actually be proved.