Hospitals must ensure that they provide bills of implant used during the treatment, and the implants used should be of accepted standard / quality. Not following this protocol usually draws adverse inference from courts.

Diligently maintaining not just patient’s medical records but also purchase records of implants bought from manufacturers is also the duty of healthcare providers. Any deviation from this can land them in trouble, as this case shows.

Managing mentally unstable patients can be a difficult task for hospitals, especially those who have suicidal tendencies but do not show any symptoms. Law says that safety of all patients is hospital’s responsibility.

Om Prakash’s fall from the first floor to ground floor caused quite a stir for the hospital where he went for treatment.

The doctors at the hospital diagnosed the injury as compound fracture and performed a surgery. The patient was advised possibility of another surgery after 2-3 months.

Post-operative complications faced by more than one patient who have undergone a similar intervention at the same time can be adversely inferred by courts. Moreover, while post-operative complications are accepted part of interventions, they ought to be explained to the patient properly and the same must be recorded it in medical records.

It is advisable to suggest post mortem after patient’s demise. While the patient’s relatives can choose to deny the same, it is very important to record such denial in medical records.

Can an implant of different size than agreed be used during an intervention? Yes, says the court, in instances where it is absolutely necessary and inevitable.

Doctors can change the course of intervention when patient is at the operation table, provided that such a change is for the betterment of patient. This case is an excellent example of the fact.