杭州的陳先生與柳女士婚後多年生活穩定，育有一子，夫妻二人一直計畫迎接二胎的到來。為了確保身體健康，他們特意預約醫院的孕前體檢，希望以良好的狀態迎接新生命。體檢當天，陳先生全程陪同，幫忙排隊、繳費，滿懷對二胎的期待與憧憬。然而，誰也沒料到，這場充滿希望的體檢，竟成為婚姻裂痕的導火索。

幾天後，陳先生前往醫院領取體檢報告，當他翻開柳女士的病歷檔案時，目光定格在流產史一欄——清晰記錄著“流產七次”，並附有每次的具體時間，其中最近一次竟然是上個月。陳先生反復核對姓名與身份證資訊，確認無誤後，整個人陷入震驚與茫然之中。他匆匆回家，當面質問柳女士。

面對丈夫的質問，柳女士表現得極為震驚，堅決否認自己曾做過流產手術，稱醫院登記出現錯誤。她強調，婚後一直陪伴在陳先生身邊，從未出現需要靜養的情況，也沒有任何流產經歷。陳先生看著妻子堅決的態度，心中不免動搖——一方面是醫院白紙黑字的記錄，另一方面是妻子的堅定否認，正規醫院真的會出現如此嚴重的登記錯誤嗎？

帶著疑惑，陳先生再次前往醫院核實情況，但醫院明確表示，資訊系統運行正常，登記記錄絕無錯誤。面對鐵證如山與妻子的辯解，陳先生一時間不知如何判斷。眼見丈夫不依不饒、醫院也拒不鬆口，柳女士甚至主動聯繫記者，試圖通過媒體“討回公道”。

在記者鏡頭前，柳女士聲淚俱下，控訴醫院“失誤”損害她的名譽，並嚴重影響家庭關係，要求醫院公開道歉並更正錯誤。為佐證自己不在醫院，她出示了考勤表顯示，在七次流產記錄對應的時間段內，她每天都有正常上下班打卡，尤其是2021年4月的一次記錄，她全月無請假，甚至有出差安排，全程在公司工作，不可能去醫院手術。她還請來老闆作證，老闆當場表示柳女士工作認真，考勤記錄真實有效，部分流產記錄對應的時間裡，她確實在公司正常工作，沒有前往醫院的可能性。有了考勤表和老闆證言，柳女士的“受害者”形象顯得可信。

然而，事情的真相很快被揭開。醫院醫務科主任回應稱，資訊科在收到反映後，已全面核查系統，確認管理系統無異常，登記資訊不存在錯誤。柳女士的每次流產手術，均有實名掛號記錄、繳費憑證和就診流程記錄。以最近一次為例，她通過醫院APP實名掛號，用個人微信帳號支付手術費用，就診登記手機號碼為其本人使用的號碼，所有環節均與個人資訊綁定，無法被他人冒用。

更讓柳女士意想不到的是，警方到場調取醫院相關時段的監控視頻。視頻顯示，進行手術的人正是柳女士，而陪同她的並非陳先生，而是此前為她作證的老闆。畫面中兩人一同入院掛號繳費，老闆全程貼身陪同並照料術後恢復，離開醫院時同行而出，行蹤與醫院記錄完全一致。

這一系列鐵證徹底打破柳女士之前的辯解，陳先生與在場的記者都目睹整個過程。醫院完整的就診記錄、支付資訊以及監控視頻相互印證，形成完整的證據鏈，也揭示婚姻中的隱秘事實——令人震驚的是，柳女士在流產期間並非獨自面對，而是與外界秘密聯繫的物件同行，而非丈夫陳先生。整件事情的曝光，讓原本平靜的家庭生活驟然陷入信任危機，也讓陳先生震驚不已。

Mr. Chen and Ms. Liu from Hangzhou had been married for many years and lived a seemingly stable life, raising one child together. As they prepared to try for a second child, the couple scheduled a pre-pregnancy medical checkup to ensure they were in good health for welcoming a new life. Mr. Chen accompanied his wife throughout the appointment, helping with queues and payments, full of hope and anticipation for their second child. However, what was meant to be a hopeful medical checkup unexpectedly became the spark that threatened to unravel their marriage.

A few days later, when Mr. Chen went to the hospital to collect the checkup report, his eyes froze on the miscarriage history section of Ms. Liu’s medical record. It clearly listed “seven miscarriages,” with specific dates for each occurrence, the most recent being just last month. After repeatedly verifying her name and ID number, he confirmed the information was indeed hers and was left in shock and disbelief. Rushing home, he confronted Ms. Liu face-to-face.

Ms. Liu appeared genuinely shocked and vehemently denied ever having undergone any miscarriage procedures, claiming that the hospital must have made a clerical error. She reminded Mr. Chen that she had been by his side throughout their marriage, had never needed time to recuperate, and could not have had such procedures. Mr. Chen, confronted with the hospital’s clear records on one hand and his wife’s adamant denial on the other, felt a wave of doubt. Could a reputable hospital really make such a grave error?

Seeking clarity, Mr. Chen returned to the hospital, only to be told that the information system was functioning normally and that the records were accurate. Faced with this evidence and his wife’s steadfast denials, he felt helpless and unsure of what to do. Seeing her husband unrelenting and the hospital unwilling to budge, Ms. Liu reached out to the media in an attempt to “vindicate” herself.

In front of reporters, Ms. Liu tearfully accused the hospital of “mistakes” that had damaged her reputation and seriously affected her family, demanding a public apology and correction. To support her claim, she presented her attendance records showing that during the dates corresponding to the seven alleged miscarriages, she had clocked in at work every day. Notably, during one record in April 2021, she had no leave and was fully on duty, even traveling for business—making it impossible for her to have visited the hospital for a procedure. She also brought in her boss, who attested to her conscientious work ethic and confirmed that her attendance records were genuine, further reinforcing her portrayal as a victim.

However, the truth soon came to light. The hospital’s medical director explained that after receiving the complaint, the IT department conducted a thorough review of the system and confirmed that the management system was functioning normally, with no errors in registration. Every miscarriage procedure listed in Ms. Liu’s record was supported by complete, real-name registration, payment receipts, and treatment logs. For instance, her most recent procedure was booked via the hospital app under her real name, paid for using her personal WeChat account, and registered with her active phone number. Each step was securely linked to her personal information, making it impossible for someone else to impersonate her.

Even more surprising to Ms. Liu, police retrieved hospital surveillance footage from the relevant periods. The video showed that the person undergoing the procedures was indeed Ms. Liu, accompanied not by Mr. Chen but by the very boss who had previously testified on her behalf. The footage captured them registering, paying, and moving through the hospital together, with the boss providing close assistance and care during recovery, and leaving the hospital together afterward. Their actions perfectly matched the hospital’s records.

This array of irrefutable evidence shattered Ms. Liu’s previous claims. Both Mr. Chen and the reporters present witnessed the footage firsthand. The hospital’s complete records, payment information, and surveillance video formed a consistent chain of evidence, revealing a hidden reality: during her miscarriages, Ms. Liu had not been alone or under her husband’s care, but had been accompanied by someone outside the marriage. The exposure of this secret upended what had seemed like a calm family life, leaving Mr. Chen in shock and raising profound questions of trust within their marriage.