Newborn missing case in Karachi sparks hospital negligence probe

Conflicting accounts emerge

A medical board is investigating a Karachi newborn missing case after conflicting medical records and statements raised questions about what happened at a private hospital in Nazimabad.

The incident took place at a hospital in Gol Market, Nazimabad No. 3, where a woman was brought by her family for delivery.

According to the family, doctors took the woman to the operation theatre for a delivery procedure. However, they said the newborn was never handed over to them after the procedure.

The family later claimed that hospital officials gave them a completely different explanation. They were allegedly told that no delivery had taken place because the woman was not pregnant.

The conflicting accounts have made the case more complicated. Questions are now being raised about the hospital’s records, medical assessments and the treatment provided to the woman.

Prof Dr Anjum Ara Hassan, a gynecologist and obstetrician who heads the hospital’s gynaecology department, has rejected the pregnancy claim.

In a video statement, Dr Hassan said the woman was not pregnant. She maintained that the hospital’s medical records, examination findings and laboratory reports supported this position.

However, information from sources familiar with the case presents a different picture. Sources said hospital documents contained an entry indicating that a live newborn had been delivered.

Hospital records under scrutiny

The reported hospital records have become a central part of the investigation. According to sources, the documents recorded a live birth but did not mention the gender of the newborn.

Sources also said hospital doctors had previously assessed the woman as being 40 weeks pregnant. This has raised questions about how the pregnancy was diagnosed and why a delivery procedure was subsequently carried out.

The medical board is now examining these conflicting details to establish what actually happened.

The family has provided the medical and legal documents in its possession to the investigation committee. These records are expected to help investigators compare the family’s account with the hospital’s official documentation.

One of the key questions before the committee is why an operation for delivery was started if the woman was not pregnant, as claimed by the hospital administration.

Investigators are therefore reviewing the sequence of events leading up to the reported delivery. They are also examining whether the medical records were prepared correctly and whether they accurately reflect what happened.

The case has attracted attention because the two sides have presented sharply different accounts. The family says a newborn was expected after the woman was taken for delivery, while the hospital has maintained that there was no pregnancy.

Also Read:Hina Javed murder case gets special prosecution team

Medical board expands investigation

The medical board has begun reviewing the available evidence instead of relying only on statements from either side.

Medical records, laboratory reports and other documents are being examined as part of the inquiry. The committee is expected to determine whether the records support the hospital’s position or the family’s allegations.

The family says hospital staff initially treated the woman as a patient who was about to give birth. They claim that the situation changed after the procedure, when staff allegedly told them that the woman had never been pregnant.

The reported live-birth entry in the hospital documents has added another layer to the investigation. If confirmed, investigators will need to establish how the entry was made and whether it accurately reflects an actual delivery.

At the same time, the hospital’s position that the woman was not pregnant will also need to be assessed against the medical examinations and laboratory results cited by its gynaecology department.

No final conclusion has yet been announced by the medical board. The investigation is continuing, and the conflicting evidence remains under examination.