A patient presented with complaints of persistent right-sided headaches and episodes of giddiness. Seeking relief, he consulted a neuropsychiatrist who conducted an EEG—results were normal. The diagnosis leaned toward depressive disorder, and pharmacological treatment commenced. Over several months and repeated consultations, the symptomatic response was inconclusive.

She came in for routine cataract surgery, confident and assured. The doctor diagnosed, explained the procedure, and obtained her consent. The operation was done, and she paid the charges. But the next day, her vision was still blurred.

The doctor reassured her. He said the lens needed refocusing. A second procedure was done. But doubts crept in. A second opinion revealed the truth: no lens had been implanted. What followed was a trail of investigations—diagnosed aphakia, a torn capsule, and a profound sense of betrayal.

She was a doctor—experienced, careful, and determined to get her father the best care. He was on a ventilator, and the hospital where he’d been admitted couldn't wean him off. She chose to move him to a higher centre, where a pulmonologist she trusted was available.

She was told to contact an ambulance provider linked to the hospital. She made the call, was assured it would be an ACLS ambulance with proper backup and a doctor onboard. But the reality turned out differently.

During the transfer, things slipped. Her father’s vitals dropped, and by the time they reached the hospital, his oxygen levels had fallen drastically. The person introduced as a doctor disappeared after the journey. The ventilator wasn’t working as promised. The shock was visible—not just in her father’s condition, but in the lack of accountability.

The patient, admitted for full-term delivery with a history of Caesarean section, had expressed preference for surgical birth. Despite this, labour was induced with prostaglandin-based medication and later augmented. A ventouse-assisted vaginal delivery was carried out. Soon after, the patient experienced severe postpartum bleeding.

In absence of sufficient emergency support and an active ambulance driver, she was transported to a higher medical center. Despite surgery and multiple transfusions, she passed away. The newborn, delivered with the umbilical cord around the neck, was later found to exhibit signs of neurological compromise.

The child was lively, barely five, brought to a small clinic with a common concern—ear pain. What followed took less than half an hour. The doctor examined him, declared a bacterial infection, and administered two injectable drugs. Minutes later, the child collapsed. By the time he reached the government hospital, he was declared dead.

The postmortem linked the death to anaphylactic shock from the antibiotic administered. The father alleged negligence: the doctor gave a high-strength injection without proper investigation, ignored possible allergic reactions, and failed to provide emergency care. More crucially, he claimed the doctor falsely diagnosed a gram-negative infection on-the-spot—without conducting the gram staining procedure, a process that scientifically takes one to two hours.

A young mother arrived at a private hospital in Nellore for delivery. Her ultrasound showed the baby weighed 3.6 kg—on the heavier side, with a history of pregnancy-induced hypertension and three previous miscarriages. She asked for a caesarean. The doctor said no. Instead, a forceps-assisted delivery was performed.

Shortly after birth, the baby showed alarming signs: swelling on the scalp, high-grade infection, and a crushed right ear pinna. He was rushed to a specialty hospital in Chennai.

There, doctors confirmed subgaleal bleed, necrotising fasciitis, and multiple organ complications requiring ventilator support, plastic surgery, and extensive antibiotics. The hospital's records pointed to birth trauma from improper use of forceps.

A middle-aged man was admitted to a government hospital for treatment of a kidney condition. During his stay, the doctors advised insertion of a perma catheter — a long-term dialysis access — through the right internal jugular vein.

However, the procedure was carried out on the left side of the neck. The patient alleged that no consent was taken for the left-sided procedure, and this switch led to complications that later required surgical correction. He approached the District Consumer Forum, which awarded compensation — but the hospital challenged this order.

The case eventually landed before the Karnataka High Court.