A 21-year-old man from Firozabad has lost his left arm after undergoing treatment for a stomach-related problem at Lucknow’s Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, with his family alleging that medical negligence turned a routine hospital stay into a life-changing tragedy.
The young man, identified as Ankit Rathore, underwent an operation at the Lucknow hospital. According to his family, he later developed severe swelling in his left hand after a vein was used to administer an intravenous drip.
What followed was a series of complications that eventually led to the amputation of his arm. The family says the limb had to be operated on and cut twice, leaving Ankit Rathore permanently dependent on others for several basic activities.
His mother, who describes Ankit Rathore as her only son and the family’s hope for the future, has alleged serious negligence in his treatment. The family has approached senior authorities, including the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak, seeking action against those responsible.
The case has now become a painful dispute between a grieving family seeking accountability and hospital authorities who, according to the family’s account, have denied any lapse in treatment.
Ankit’s troubles began after he was admitted to Lohia Hospital for an operation related to his stomach. During his treatment, a vein was used for an intravenous line, commonly referred to as a cannula or IV line.
According to Ankit Rathore and his family, swelling appeared in his left hand around 24 hours after the intravenous line was inserted. The family believes that the condition was not addressed properly at the initial stage and that the problem subsequently became much more serious.
The swelling was followed by complications affecting the hand. The family says the condition deteriorated to such an extent that doctors eventually had to remove the affected limb.
For a 21-year-old, the loss of a hand has consequences far beyond the physical injury. It can affect employment, independence, education, daily activities and the person’s ability to support themselves. For Ankit’s family, the incident has also raised questions about how a complication following routine hospital treatment developed into a permanent disability.
The family has questioned whether the swelling and subsequent infection received timely and appropriate attention.
Ankit’s mother has been particularly vocal about the circumstances surrounding the deterioration of her son’s condition. She says her son was unconscious during the relevant period and therefore rejects the explanation that he might have moved his hand while the drip was being administered.
According to the family, doctors associated with Lohia Hospital gave an explanation during a meeting at Deputy Chief Minister Brajesh Pathak’s residence. The doctors reportedly said there was no deficiency in treatment and suggested that Ankit may have moved his hand while the drip was being administered, resulting in an infection.
That explanation has left the family deeply dissatisfied.
Ankit’s mother reportedly questioned how her son could have moved his hand if he was unconscious at the time. Her response reflected the central issue at the heart of the family’s complaint: whether the infection resulted from the patient’s movement, as the doctors reportedly suggested, or whether there was another problem in the way the intravenous line was inserted, monitored or managed.
The family is demanding an impartial inquiry into the treatment provided to Ankit.
His mother’s distress has become one of the most emotional aspects of the dispute. She says Ankit was her only son and the person she expected to rely on in her old age. Instead, she now fears that he will require assistance himself for much of his life.
The family’s complaint has reached the highest levels of the Uttar Pradesh government. They have approached the Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister, seeking intervention and action against the doctors they believe were responsible for the alleged lapse.
The family is currently seeking attention to its complaint outside the Chief Minister’s residence, hoping that the government will order an investigation and establish whether any medical negligence took place.
The matter also raises broader questions about patient safety in government hospitals. Intravenous lines and cannulas are routinely used in hospitals to deliver medicines and fluids, and complications can occur for a number of medical reasons. However, when a complication becomes severe enough to result in the loss of a limb, questions about monitoring, diagnosis and timely intervention naturally become central to any inquiry.
At this stage, the allegations made by Ankit’s family should not be treated as a final finding of medical negligence. Establishing responsibility would require a proper medical and administrative investigation, including examination of Ankit’s treatment records, the procedure used to insert and maintain the intravenous line, the onset and progression of the infection, and the treatment provided after the swelling appeared.
An independent inquiry could also clarify the hospital’s version of events and determine whether the explanation given to the family is medically supported by the available records.
The dispute has placed Ankit and his family in an extremely difficult position. The young man went to hospital for treatment of a stomach problem but eventually lost his arm. His family now wants answers about the chain of events that led to the amputation.
For Ankit’s mother, the issue is not only about compensation or medical expenses. She wants to know what went wrong and whether anyone could have prevented the loss of her son’s hand.
The family believes that accountability is necessary so that another patient does not face a similar situation. The hospital, on the other hand, has reportedly maintained that there was no deficiency in treatment and attributed the infection to Ankit’s movement during the administration of the drip.
The conflicting accounts make a transparent investigation particularly important.
If an inquiry confirms negligence, the family could expect appropriate action against those found responsible. If the investigation finds that the complication resulted from an unavoidable medical condition despite proper treatment, that finding would also need to be clearly communicated to the family.
For now, Ankit’s future has changed dramatically. At just 21, he is facing life after the loss of his left arm, while his family continues to seek an explanation for how a hospital visit ended in such a devastating outcome.
As the family waits for government intervention, the case has become a plea for accountability, answers and justice. Whether the allegations of negligence are ultimately established will depend on the evidence and findings of a competent investigation. But for Ankit’s mother, one question remains at the centre of the entire ordeal: how did her only son’s treatment lead to the loss of his arm?