Published Oct 30, 2026 | 9:41 AM ⚊ Updated Oct 30, 2026 | 9:41 AM
The court observed that the clinic was registered as a day care centre.
Synopsis: The Kerala High Court has ordered the constitution of an SIT by the State Crime Branch to probe alleged medical negligence after a 31-year-old software engineer lost nine fingers following liposuction at a private clinic in Thiruvananthapuram in February 2025. The court noted shortcomings in earlier medical assessments and said the allegations warranted closer examination. The survivor’s family approached the court after the police decided to close their investigation, following medical ethics committees’ findings that cleared the clinic.
The Kerala High Court has ordered a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe by the State Crime Branch into allegations of medical negligence in the case of a 31-year-old software engineer who lost nine fingers after undergoing liposuction at a private cosmetic clinic in Thiruvananthapuram in February 2025.
The court directed that the SIT be constituted within two weeks and complete its investigation within six months of its formation.
The case concerns Neethu, a native of Sreevaraham in Muttathara, who underwent liposuction at Cosmetiq Hospital in Arasummoodu on 22 February 2025, at a cost of ₹3 lakh.
She subsequently developed septic shock, kidney failure and digital gangrene following post-operative complications. Although treatment saved her life, she had to undergo amputation of nine fingers and was left with more than 80 percent physical disability. Neethu is preparing for another major surgery scheduled for December. Her family had accused the clinic of negligence.
The Thumba police had earlier decided to close their investigation into the case after the State-level medical ethics committee cleared the private clinic of wrongdoing. The committee, chaired by Health Department Director Dr KJ Reena, concluded that the doctors at Cosmetiq Clinic in Kulathoor had provided proper treatment, despite the police seeking further clarification.
The district-level ethics committee had also reached a similar conclusion, although the District Medical Officer’s report had pointed to lapses on the clinic’s part. Neethu’s family subsequently approached the High Court seeking justice.
The court observed that the clinic was registered as a day care centre, which is permitted to perform only procedures that allow patients to be discharged within 24 hours. Liposuction and abdominoplasty, however, are complex procedures requiring adequate post-operative care, it noted.
The court said the allegation that performing such surgery at the facility amounted to gross negligence warranted closer examination. It also found shortcomings in the assessments by earlier medical expert committees, which had not adequately examined whether the clinic’s infrastructure and the treatment provided complied with medical protocols.
The court further took note of the allegation that the hospital failed to advise Neethu to return for immediate admission after being informed of her deteriorating condition.
Neethu told the court that she was discharged the morning after the surgery but developed low blood pressure, vomiting and abdominal pain within hours. Her condition subsequently worsened. After being shifted to another hospital, she suffered a cardiac arrest. She remained on ventilator support for three weeks during treatment.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
