Woman dies post hysterectomy, hospital, doctor asked to pay Rs 19 lakh to husband

The Telangana State Consumer Commission has held that Hyderabad hospital and a doctor were negligent during the treatment of a 37-year-old woman who died of post-surgery complications and directed them to pay over Rs 19 lakh in compensation to her husband.

Presiding officer (non-judicial) Smt Meena Ramanathan and judicial members K Ranga Rao and V V Seshubabu, were hearing a consumer complaint filed by a man against M/s Madhuri Hospital and consultant gynaecologist Dr Muvva Madhuri, alleging that negligent surgery and delayed post-operative treatment resulted in the death of his wife in March 2016.

“The entire delay in not recognising the severity lies squarely on opposite party number 2 (Dr Muvva Madhuri), the doctor, and the complainant’s wife, a young lady of 37 years, died for the negligence of opposite party number 2. The negligence is established for the failure to recognise the injury and failure to repair it during the surgery and failure to recognise the post-operative symptoms and failure in delay in diagnosis,” the commission said on June 19.

The case arose from a surgery performed on March 18, 2016. Within a day, the patient developed abdominal pain, breathing difficulty and abdominal distension before being shifted to another hospital, where doctors diagnosed faecal peritonitis, sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction syndrome. She died on March 23, 2016. A decade later, the consumer commission concluded that the fatal complications should have been identified and addressed much earlier.

Surgery followed years of treatment

According to the complaint, the woman had been under the treatment of Dr Muvva Madhuri since 2014 for menstrual problems and stomach pain. Medical investigations revealed an endometrial polyp, a small uterine fibroid and polycystic ovaries. She later underwent dilatation and curettage (D and C), following which pathology reports suggested cystic glandular hyperplasia, a condition that the treating doctor considered pre-cancerous.

Based on these findings, she was advised to undergo a total laparoscopic hysterectomy. She was admitted to Madhuri Hospital on March 17, 2016, and underwent surgery the following day after paying approximately Rs 50,000 towards treatment expenses.

Condition deteriorated within 24 hours

The complaint stated that within 24 hours of the operation, she began complaining of severe abdominal pain, uneasiness and breathing difficulty. Although she was examined by specialists and underwent investigations, including CT scans, her condition continued to deteriorate.

Story continues below this ad

The treating doctor reopened the umbilical sutures and drained nearly one litre of peritoneal fluid from the abdomen before referring her to Global Hospital for advanced treatment. She was shifted there on March 21, 2016. Despite emergency treatment, her condition worsened rapidly. She died on March 23, 2016. Her husband subsequently spent nearly Rs 2.5 lakh on treatment at Global Hospital and later approached the consumer commission seeking Rs 50 lakh compensation for medical negligence.

Hospital denied negligence

Madhuri Hospital and Dr Muvva Madhuri denied all allegations. They argued that laparoscopic hysterectomy is a recognised procedure carrying known risks, including bowel, bladder and ureter injuries, and that these risks had been explained to both the patient and her husband before surgery.

According to the hospital, the surgery itself was uneventful and the patient was recovering normally before she complained of discomfort. The hospital maintained that all necessary investigations, including CT scans, ECG and cardiac evaluation, were promptly conducted.

It further claimed that the CT scan did not reveal any abnormality apart from expected post-operative changes and that the patient was stable when she was referred to Global Hospital. The opposite parties also argued that Global Hospital had not been made a party to the complaint despite having re-operated on the patient.

Story continues below this ad

Commission rejects defence

The commission found several inconsistencies in the hospital’s defence after examining the medical records. It noted that the CT scan conducted after surgery had shown moderate ascites, pneumoperitoneum and other findings requiring immediate clinical correlation. The commission observed that nearly one litre of fluid had accumulated inside the patient’s abdomen within 24 hours of surgery.

According to the commission, such an accumulation immediately after laparoscopic hysterectomy should have alerted the treating doctor to the possibility of bowel injury, urinary tract injury, internal bleeding or severe infection. Instead, the doctor failed to determine the source of the fluid before referring the patient elsewhere.

“This must be carefully addressed by us. When a litre of unexpected peritoneal fluid is drained, post laparoscopic hysterectomy and the patient is in visible distress, it indicates severe complications such as internal bleed or urinary tract injury. This can also mean infection or severe inflammatory reaction and can cause septicemia,” the commission said.

Delay allowed infection to spread

The commission said that the patient had already begun showing classic symptoms of peritonitis, including abdominal distension, pain and breathing difficulty.

Instead of immediately returning the patient to the operation theatre to identify and repair the source of injury, the doctor delayed intervention.

The commission emphasised that in cases involving bowel injury after surgery, time is crucial.

It relied heavily on the death summary issued by Global Hospital, which recorded the principal diagnosis as “Post Hysterectomy Faecal Peritonitis with Sepsis with Multi Organ Dysfunction Syndrome.”

According to the commission, the diagnosis clearly established that bowel contents had leaked into the abdominal cavity following surgery, causing overwhelming infection and eventual organ failure.

“The symptoms of peritonitis was reported immediately but the opposite party No.2 doctor did not respond immediately… Time is critical and the delay in not recognizing the symptoms constitutes medical negligence,” the commission held.

Global Hospital not necessary party

Rejecting the hospital’s objection regarding non-impleadment of Global Hospital, the commission said the subsequent hospital could not be blamed for negligence that had already occurred. It observed that by the time the patient reached Global Hospital, the injury had already progressed significantly because of the delay in diagnosis and treatment at Madhuri Hospital. The commission held that the treating doctor had failed both to recognise the surgical injury and to respond appropriately after unmistakable post-operative warning signs appeared.

Story continues below this ad

How compensation was calculated

Although the complainant sought Rs 50 lakh compensation, the commission calculated damages using the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for assessing compensation in the case of homemakers. Treating the deceased as a homemaker with a notional monthly income of Rs 10,000, the commission added future prospects, deducted personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 15. It also included approximately Rs 3 lakh spent on medical treatment. On this basis, it awarded total compensation of Rs 19.8 lakh.

Final directions

Allowing the complaint partly on June 19, 2026, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed Madhuri Hospital and Dr  Muvva Madhuri to jointly and severally pay Rs 19,80,000 to the complainant within 45 days. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum until realisation.

Consumer takeaway

This ruling is a reminder that a doctor’s responsibility does not end when an operation is completed. The consumer commission made it clear that post-operative care is an equally crucial part of treatment. If a patient develops alarming symptoms after surgery, doctors are expected to identify the cause quickly and take immediate corrective action.

The ruling also underlines that merely referring a patient to another hospital does not shield a doctor or hospital from liability. If negligence has already occurred before the referral, consumer forums can hold the original treating doctor and hospital accountable and award compensation for the resulting harm.

Story continues below this ad

Consumers facing similar grievances may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Telangana contact: (040) 233 94 399 ) or dial the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.