New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld a State Commission order holding a Ludhiana-based hospital, its oncology surgeon, and pathologists at a medical college liable for medical negligence. The case involved a radical facial cancer surgery performed on a patient without a confirmed diagnosis.
Background of the Case: The incident dates back to 2014 when the patient, a dentist, noticed a small lesion on her right cheek. She underwent an excision biopsy at Mediways Hospital, Ludhiana, and the tissue sample was sent to Dayanand Medical College (DMC) for analysis. The pathology report suggested “malignant melanoma” but recommended further confirmatory tests.
Surgery Performed Despite Uncertainty: Despite the tentative diagnosis, surgeons at Mediways Hospital performed radical surgery on August 7, 2014, removing facial tissue and neck lymph nodes. This resulted in permanent disfigurement and complications for the patient, significantly impacting her facial appearance and nervous system.
State Commission Findings: The State Commission had earlier held the pathologists negligent for issuing a preliminary diagnosis without confirmation. Mediways Hospital and its surgeons were also found responsible for performing irreversible surgery without certainty of malignancy. The Commission had awarded Rs 55 lakh compensation, with Rs 45 lakh from the hospital and Rs 10 lakh from the medical college and pathologists.
Patient’s Appeal: The patient appealed to the NCDRC seeking enhanced compensation of Rs 95 lakh, citing permanent facial nerve damage, inability to smile, and adverse effects on her professional career. She also incurred medical expenses for corrective surgeries in the USA.
NCDRC Observations: The Apex Consumer Court upheld the State Commission’s findings, noting that the surgery was conducted without waiting for mandatory confirmatory tests like immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers. Expert reviews, including AIIMS, found no conclusive justification for the radical procedure. While minor surgery may have been warranted, the extent of the excision could have been reduced with proper confirmation.
Partial Negligence, No Compensation Enhancement: Although the Court confirmed partial negligence on the part of the hospital and pathologists, it found no reason to enhance the compensation. The patient had consented to the surgery, and the involvement of one surgeon was limited to giving inputs, with no conclusive evidence of direct participation.
Increased Litigation Costs: While compensation was not increased, the NCDRC enhanced the litigation costs payable to the patient from Rs 55,000 to Rs 5 lakh. The Commission also clarified that insurance companies are liable only as per their policy coverage.
