Former prime minister Imran Khan was taken from Adiala Jail to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) in Islamabad overnight between 10 and 11 November for an eye examination and follow-up treatment. PIMS said he received an injection on the advice of his ophthalmologist, remained clinically stable and was discharged at about 2:30am with instructions for further care.
The visit has renewed questions about medical access and communication with the family and personal doctors of a high-profile prisoner. The hospital’s account, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s response and the government’s position should be kept separate: they do not all describe the same issue, and the public statement does not provide a full clinical report.
What PIMS confirmed about the overnight visit
According to the statement issued by the hospital and reported on 11 November, Khan was brought from Adiala Jail during the night between Tuesday and Wednesday for a medical check-up and follow-up eye treatment. PIMS said the examination was carried out on the advice of the ophthalmologist treating him.
The hospital’s account included four main points:
- An eye assessment and general medical examination were carried out.
- An intravitreal anti-VEGF injection was administered by the ophthalmology team on specialist advice.
- PIMS said his vital parameters were normal and that he was clinically stable before discharge.
- He was discharged at approximately 2:30am with instructions for further care and follow-up.
These are the hospital’s reported findings for that visit. They do not, on their own, establish a long-term prognosis or show how much vision has been restored.
What the PTI and government have said
PTI objected to the way the visit was handled. The party said Khan’s family and personal doctors had not been informed before the overnight transfer and called for access to him and his medical information. Its concern is therefore not limited to the procedure itself; it also concerns who is notified, who can consult with the patient and how treatment decisions are communicated.
Parliamentary Affairs Minister Tariq Fazal Chaudhry told reporters that the required medical care was being provided. That is the government’s stated position. It does not answer every question about family notification or access to independent medical advice, just as the party’s objections do not establish that the treatment itself was medically inadequate.
Confirmed facts and unresolved questions
| Point | What is publicly established |
|---|---|
| Hospital visit | PIMS said Khan was brought from Adiala Jail overnight between 10 and 11 November. |
| Procedure | The hospital said an intravitreal anti-VEGF injection was given on the ophthalmologist’s advice. |
| Condition at discharge | PIMS described him as clinically stable, with normal vital parameters. |
| Discharge time | The hospital said he was discharged at about 2:30am with follow-up instructions. |
| Family notification | PTI said the family and personal doctors were not informed beforehand; the public hospital statement did not address the notification process in detail. |
| Long-term eyesight | No new visual-acuity measurements, scan results or prognosis were included in the public statement. |
| Next treatment | PIMS referred to further care and follow-up but did not publish a detailed schedule. |
Why the injection does not answer every medical question
An intravitreal anti-VEGF injection is a specialist treatment delivered inside the eye for certain retinal conditions. The fact that a patient receives one tells readers that an ophthalmologist recommended a procedure; it does not reveal the full diagnosis, the severity of the condition, the expected response or the number of further treatments that may be required.
Earlier reporting has described Khan’s right-eye condition as central retinal vein occlusion. The latest PIMS statement, however, focused on the overnight examination and treatment. It did not publish a new diagnosis, detailed scan findings, a visual-acuity score or a prognosis. Those omissions should not be filled with speculation.
For that reason, two conclusions should be avoided. The statement that he was stable at discharge should not be turned into a claim that his eyesight has fully recovered. Equally, the fact that he received another injection should not be presented as proof that his condition has deteriorated. Neither conclusion follows from the information released about this visit.
Why communication and continuity of care matter in prison
When a person is in custody, the prison administration and state health system have responsibility for arranging access to appropriate medical care. For a condition requiring specialist follow-up, continuity matters: the treating ophthalmologist needs access to relevant records, the patient needs clear instructions, and any urgent change in symptoms must be assessed through an appropriate clinical pathway.
Family members and personal doctors can also play an important role in understanding a patient’s medical history and coordinating follow-up, subject to lawful procedures, clinical consent and the patient’s privacy. A transparent process does not require the public release of every private medical detail. It does require clear communication about whether treatment occurred, what follow-up is planned and how authorised representatives can obtain relevant information.
There are two separate questions in this case. The first is clinical: what did the examination show, what treatment was administered and what follow-up is required? The second is procedural: who was informed, whether the patient could consult his chosen doctors and how the applicable court directions are being implemented. The public statement answers some of the first question but leaves parts of the second unresolved.
What readers should watch for next
The next reliable update would ideally clarify whether the ophthalmologist has scheduled further treatment, whether a follow-up examination has taken place and whether the hospital or authorities have addressed the concerns about family and personal-doctor access. Any further statement should be distinguished from party claims, political commentary or unverified social-media posts.
Until a fuller clinical report is made public, the most accurate summary is limited: PIMS says Khan received specialist eye treatment overnight, was clinically stable at discharge and was given follow-up instructions. PTI has raised concerns about notification and access, while the government says necessary care is being provided. The public record does not yet settle every question about the longer-term condition or the arrangements for future consultations.
Health reporting note: This article summarises publicly reported statements and is not a medical assessment or a substitute for an ophthalmologist’s advice.
Illustrative image of an eye-examination refractor; it does not depict Imran Khan, PIMS or the equipment used during his treatment. Photo by Quincy Follweiler via Unsplash.
\n
Hospital information: PIMS Department of Ophthalmology.