Published Apr 27, 2026 | 11:28 AM ⚊ Updated Apr 27, 2026 | 11:28 AM
Hospital beds. (iStock)
Synopsis: A Hyderabad consumer court directed a hospital and a gynaecologist to pay compensation to the husband of a woman who died after undergoing a hysterectomy, ruling that the surgery was performed on a patient with anaemia without establishing medical necessity. The commission examined the medical records and concluded that all organ parameters were within normal range before surgery, except for the low haemoglobin.
A Hyderabad consumer court directed a hospital and a gynaecologist to pay ₹30 lakh in compensation to the husband of a woman who died after undergoing a hysterectomy, ruling that the surgery was performed on a patient with anaemia without establishing medical necessity.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad, passed the order on 13 March 2026, holding Akshara Medical and Research Centre and its consulting gynaecologist, Dr N Sarada Vani, jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service.
The commission observed that the doctors failed to produce evidence justifying the decision to operate, describing the surgery as one “which was not at all required at that juncture.”
Also Read: How India’s love for chubby children builds a generation of obese adults
G Lakshmi Narasamma (51) visited Dr Sarada Vani at Ankura Hospitals, Banjara Hills, on 27 October 2021, presenting with painful menstruation, prolonged bleeding with clots, and irregular menstrual cycles. Her haemoglobin stood at 8.4 grams per decilitre, indicating anaemia.
The gynaecologist recommended a total laparoscopic hysterectomy with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, a procedure involving the removal of the uterus, ovaries and fallopian tubes. A general physician cleared the patient for surgery. The procedure took place the following evening, 28 October 2021.
Hours after the surgery, the patient’s condition deteriorated. Nurses recorded a blood pressure drop to 70/30, oxygen saturation at 88 percent, and urine output falling to just 5–10 ml. Blood tests revealed haemoglobin at 7.2 grams, rising liver enzymes, and serum creatinine at 2.5 mg, pointing to liver and kidney failure.
By early morning on 29 October 2021, scans showed fluid accumulation in the pelvis, indicating internal bleeding. The hospital transferred her to Apollo Hospitals, Jubilee Hills, as it lacked dialysis and CT scan facilities.
Apollo diagnosed her with acute kidney injury, renal cortical necrosis, and severe metabolic acidosis. Doctors placed her on a ventilator. She died at 3.03 pm on 30 October 2021.
The commission examined the medical records and concluded that all organ parameters were within normal range before surgery, except for the low haemoglobin. It noted that despite one unit of blood transfusion before the procedure, haemoglobin levels did not rise, a sign the commission said should have prompted the doctor to delay the operation.
“The opposite party No. 2 (the doctor) ought not have conducted the surgery as the patient was anaemic and there is no need to conduct the surgery in a hasty manner,” the commission recorded in its order.
The court noted that the hospital and the doctor failed to demonstrate that the surgery was a life-saving measure at that point. “In the absence of any evidence that the surgery was the only life-saving option available at that time, the action to operate upon the patient cannot be said to be a prudent decision,” it observed.
The commission also criticised the hospital for lacking basic infrastructure. Akshara Medical and Research Centre did not have a dialysis unit or CT scan facility, which the court said added to the deficiency of service.
The hospital and Dr Sarada Vani argued that the patient presented with a history of heavy menstrual bleeding spanning years, and that her condition was deteriorating. They contended that the surgery was to stop ongoing blood loss and that the clinical team had followed standard protocols, including the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021.
They attributed the post-operative deterioration to Severe Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), a condition they described as a possible complication triggered by any surgery. The commission rejected this explanation, noting that the patient showed no signs of infection before the operation, making the syndrome an unlikely cause.
“The opposite parties No. 1 (hospital) and 2 (doctor) have invented SIRS as the most probable cause for the development of multi-organ dysfunction syndrome,” the commission stated.
The doctors also cited Supreme Court precedents, arguing that a doctor cannot be held liable when a chosen line of treatment does not produce the desired result. The commission distinguished those cases, holding that the negligence here lay not in the treatment approach but in the decision to perform surgery that was unwarranted.
Also Read: A prescription of music for Parkinson’s disease
The commission relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar Manglik vs Chirayu Medical Health and Medicare, which held that a medical professional cannot escape liability by relying on professional opinion alone when unreasonableness in conduct has been established.
It also drew from Nanda Kishore Prasad vs Dr Mohid Hamidi, a case where a surgeon operated on a patient with a low platelet count without proving immediate necessity, resulting in death. The court held that the ruling applied to the present facts.
The commission directed Akshara Medical and Research Centre and Dr Sarada Vani to jointly pay ₹30 lakh as compensation for loss, hardship, and mental suffering, along with ₹20,000 in costs. The order carries a compliance deadline of 45 days from the date of receipt.
Apollo Hospitals faced no liability, as the commission found no negligence on its part. Claims against the two insurance companies were also set aside, with the commission observing that the hospital and the doctor retain the right to seek reimbursement from their respective insurers.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
