A building collapse is usually measured in minutes and hours: the moment a structure gives way, the number of people trapped, the speed of rescue and the final casualty count. But for people who survive, the disaster may continue long after the rubble has been cleared. The account of Dr Aastha, who was trapped for nearly five hours after a building collapsed in Delhi’s Said-ul-Ajaib on May 30, shows how physical recovery can coexist with persistent fear, disrupted routines and the absence of psychological support.
Aastha was studying at a mess next to the building when she was warned to leave. Before she could react, the structure collapsed. She told the Times of India that she initially became numb and could neither understand what had happened nor hear properly. Trapped under the rubble, injured and struggling to breathe, she eventually remained in contact with a friend by phone. That call became a lifeline until rescuers reached her.
She was taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre after nearly five hours under the debris. She spent five days there, including two in the intensive care unit. Her injuries affected the right side of her body, including her hand and leg, and involved muscle damage. After returning to her hometown of Guna, she remained bedridden for a period, while swelling in her legs worsened when she sat.
The physical injuries were only one part of her recovery. Aastha said she avoided videos of building collapses on social media because they made her feel as though she was still trapped under the rubble. She also said that she did not receive psychological counselling after the incident. Her experience exposes a gap in the way disaster recovery is commonly understood: rescue and hospital treatment may address immediate survival, while the psychological consequences can remain largely invisible.
Dr Rajesh Sagar, a psychiatry professor at AIIMS, describes a building collapse as a form of “life-threatening stress”. His assessment, as reported by the Times of India, is that survivors can pass through different phases of disaster-related mental distress. Some may develop acute stress symptoms soon after the event. In others, these symptoms can persist and reach the threshold of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The symptoms identified by Sagar include anxiety, repeated recollection of the incident, flashbacks, distressing dreams, depression, emotional numbness and a sense of detachment. Other survivors may experience less severe but continuing effects, including irritability, mood swings or persistent anxiety. Disturbed sleep is one of the warning signs he highlights. Difficulty falling asleep, repeated waking, early waking or being jolted awake by dreams of the incident can all indicate that a person continues to relive the event.
This distinction between visible injury and continuing distress is important because a survivor may appear to have recovered once wounds have healed or hospital treatment has ended. The account supplied by Aastha suggests otherwise. Avoiding collapse-related images, remaining physically restricted after discharge and struggling with the memory of being trapped are not separate from the disaster; they are part of its extended aftermath.
Sagar says the first step is recognising that these symptoms may be consequences of what a person has experienced, rather than simply a change in personality or behaviour. That framing places responsibility on families, friends and care providers to observe changes and respond with support. Keeping a survivor occupied, reconnecting the person with hobbies and routines, and ensuring continued support from relatives and friends may help during recovery.
The expert also identifies breathing exercises, mindfulness and cognitive behavioural therapy as potentially useful measures. Medication may be considered when clinically necessary. The report does not present these measures as a uniform treatment plan. Instead, it indicates that support must be connected to the survivor’s symptoms and clinical needs, with professional assessment where necessary.
The consequences of a collapse can also extend to conditions that existed before the disaster. Sagar notes that disasters may worsen pre-existing mental or physical illnesses. Disruption can lead some survivors to stop taking regular medication or abandon treatment. This makes screening and follow-up important, particularly when a person’s care has been interrupted by injury, hospitalisation, displacement or a return to a different city.
That point broadens the meaning of post-collapse care. It is not limited to treating injuries caused by falling debris. It includes checking whether people are sleeping, whether symptoms of distress are continuing, whether existing illnesses are being managed and whether survivors have access to psychological assistance. The supplied report does not establish how consistently such follow-up occurs after building collapses, but Aastha’s account indicates that psychological counselling was not part of her recovery after discharge.
The collapse also raises questions about what happens before a survivor reaches a hospital. Dr (Maj) Rajesh Bhardwaj, founder of Med First ENT Centre and a doctor with experience dealing with such incidents, cautions against rushing indiscriminately onto unstable rubble. He says adding weight or using heavy machinery too early can destroy air pockets where trapped people may still be breathing.
His account places careful identification of voids and safe extraction at the centre of the rescue process. Rescuers must communicate with people who may be trapped, check their condition and pay attention to the airway. Bhardwaj also warns that exposed victims should not simply be pulled out by their limbs because spinal injuries could turn an otherwise survivable injury into permanent disability.
The rescue phase and the recovery phase are therefore connected. A survivor’s eventual condition can be affected by decisions made at the site, by the treatment received in hospital and by the support available after discharge. The sequence is not presented in the report as a single institutional programme. Rather, it emerges through the observations of the survivor and the two medical experts: careful rescue protects immediate survival, clinical treatment addresses physical harm, and sustained support is needed for psychological and physical recovery.
The case also shows why casualty figures alone cannot describe the impact of a building collapse. Six people died in the Said-ul-Ajaib incident, while Aastha survived after being trapped for hours. A death toll records the most immediate loss, but it does not capture the longer period in which survivors may experience injury, immobility, anxiety, sleep disturbance or repeated memories of the collapse.
Nor does survival mean that the person returns immediately to ordinary life. Aastha’s recovery involved five days in the trauma centre, two days in intensive care, a period of being bedridden and continuing difficulty with swelling. Her avoidance of collapse videos indicates that ordinary digital exposure can also reactivate memories of the event. In this sense, recovery is not confined to the site or the hospital; reminders can follow survivors into their homes and daily routines.
The evidence in the report supports a limited but important conclusion. Building-collapse response cannot end when the last person is removed from the debris or discharged from a hospital. The immediate rescue operation remains critical, but survivors may require monitoring and support after the visible emergency has ended. Sleep, behaviour, medication continuity, physical mobility and the ability to resume ordinary routines are all part of the recovery picture described by the experts.
What remains unclear from the supplied material is how many survivors receive structured psychological follow-up, how responsibility for that care is divided among hospitals and authorities, and whether post-disaster protocols routinely include mental-health screening. Those gaps should not be filled with assumptions. But the individual account and expert testimony establish why they deserve attention. A building collapse is not only a structural failure or a rescue emergency. For those who survive, it can become a prolonged health crisis whose most difficult effects may be hidden from public view.
