Hyderabad hospital, orthopaedic surgeon slapped Rs 12.25 lakh compensation for negligence in fractured wrist treatment
Medical Negligence
Hyderabad: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hyderabad, Telangana, directed an orthopaedic surgeon and a hospital to jointly pay Rs 12.25 lakh to a patient who suffered pain, restricted wrist and finger movements, and loss of grip following treatment for a fractured wrist.
The Commission found medical negligence in the treatment after examining the medical records and subsequent investigations. It noted that the patient's condition continued to worsen after the first surgery and that the treatment fell below the expected standard of care.
According to a report by The Indian Express, the 38-year-old patient sustained an injury to her left hand on December 3, 2022, while playing with her children, when her hand accidentally went beneath a house gate. She experienced swelling, deformity and severe pain and was taken to the hospital for treatment.
The treating doctor advised surgery, allegedly assuring her that the procedure was minor and that she would regain normal movement.
The surgery was performed the same day, and she was discharged on December 5, 2022. However, the patient alleged that she continued to experience pain, stiffness, swelling and restricted movement of her wrist and fingers despite repeated follow-up consultations.
As her condition did not improve, she consulted two other doctors at another hospital, who advised removal of the implant. She subsequently underwent a second surgery on May 24, 2023, performed by another surgeon.
Despite the second procedure, she complained of continuing restriction in wrist movement and loss of grip. Further evaluation and tendon reconstruction were reportedly advised.
The patient subsequently approached the Consumer Commission, alleging that the treatment had left her with prolonged physical suffering, mental agony and difficulty carrying out her daily and professional activities.
During the proceedings, the hospital and the treating surgeon denied the allegations of negligence.
They argued that the treatment subsequently received by the woman at other medical establishments was independent of the original procedure. They also maintained that the need for implant removal or further tendon surgery did not automatically establish negligence in the first operation.
It was contended that an adverse surgical outcome or postoperative complication, by itself, could not be treated as proof of medical negligence.
After examining the material placed on record, the Commission considered the woman's continuing symptoms and the medical findings following the initial surgery.
The Commission noted that the complainant was a practising advocate and that the restrictions in her wrist and hand movements had implications for her professional activities.
As quoted by The Indian Express, the Commission observed:
“The functional restriction of a hand is not an insignificant consequence for a person whose professional activities involve writing, drafting, handling documents and other routine professional work,”
The Commission also reiterated that an unsuccessful treatment outcome does not necessarily establish negligence on the part of a doctor.
It observed:
“A medical practitioner is not an insurer against every adverse medical outcome. The applicable standard is that of a reasonably competent medical practitioner exercising reasonable skill and care in the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time,”
The Commission explained that medical negligence claims must be assessed on the basis of evidence and the standard of care expected from a reasonably competent medical practitioner, rather than merely judging the outcome of treatment.
However, in the present case, it found that the medical records and subsequent investigations supported the complainant's allegations and established that the treatment had fallen below the expected professional standard.
While considering the compensation payable, the Commission took into account the prolonged pain, additional treatment and functional impairment experienced by the woman.
It observed:
“It cannot become a punitive windfall, but equally it cannot be reduced to a token amount where the evidence establishes prolonged pain, additional treatment and functional impairment,”
After considering the evidence, the Commission held the orthopaedic surgeon and hospital liable for medical negligence.
In its order dated September 29, 2026, the Commission directed the surgeon and hospital to jointly pay Rs 12 lakh as compensation for the complainant's physical pain and suffering, mental agony, inconvenience, loss of amenities and functional impairment.
The Commission also directed them to pay Rs 25,000 towards litigation costs, bringing the total amount payable to Rs 12.25 lakh.
