Compensation of Rs 55 Lakh Ordered for Hospital and Surgeons in Facial Cancer Surgery Misdiagnosis Case

New Delhi: Medical Negligence Ruling by NCDRC

Overview of the Case

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld the State Commission’s ruling, finding a hospital in Ludhiana, along with its oncology surgeon and pathologists from a medical college, liable for medical negligence. This decision stems from a radical facial cancer surgery performed on a patient without a confirmed diagnosis.

Background of the Incident

The case dates back to 2014 when the patient, a practicing dentist, discovered a small lesion on her right cheek. She underwent an excision biopsy at Mediways Hospital, Ludhiana, where a tissue sample was taken for analysis. The biopsy was sent to Dayanand Medical College (DMC) for histopathological evaluation.

On August 2, 2014, the pathology report suggested “malignant melanoma,” a severe skin cancer type, but also indicated that further tests, including immunohistochemistry (IHC) markers, were necessary for a definitive diagnosis. Despite this, surgeons at Mediways Hospital proceeded with radical surgery on August 7, 2014, which involved extensive facial tissue removal and lymph node excision, resulting in permanent disfigurement and complications for the patient.

State Commission’s Findings

In its 2018 ruling, the State Commission determined that the pathologists at DMC were negligent for providing a tentative diagnosis without confirmation. Additionally, it held Mediways Hospital and its surgeons accountable for conducting irreversible surgery without certainty regarding malignancy. The Commission awarded the patient Rs 55 lakhs in compensation, with Rs 45 lakhs to be paid by the hospital and surgeons, and Rs 10 lakhs by the medical college and pathologists.

Appeals Filed

Multiple appeals were submitted against the State Commission’s decision. The patient sought an increase in her compensation, arguing that the surgery was performed hastily and resulted in permanent trauma. She requested Rs 95 lakhs, citing nerve damage and its impact on her ability to smile and blink, as well as the financial burden of corrective treatments in the USA. The treating hospital and medical college also contested the findings against them.

NCDRC’s Observations and Ruling

The NCDRC agreed with the State Commission, noting that the surgery was based on a preliminary pathology report without waiting for necessary confirmatory tests. The Commission highlighted that expert reviews, including an assessment by a medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), found no justification for the radical surgery.

While acknowledging that some facial surgery might have been necessary to remove the mole, which was later determined to be non-cancerous, the NCDRC stated that the surgery would not have been as extensive had the doctors awaited confirmatory reports regarding the malignancy.

The Commission emphasized that the surgery’s consequences severely impacted the patient, leading to significant damage to her facial appearance and quality of life. It recognized the trauma she endured due to the surgical errors and subsequent treatments.

Compensation and Costs

Although the NCDRC upheld the findings of medical negligence, it did not agree to increase the compensation amount. The Commission noted that the patient consented to the surgery and could not claim ignorance of its potential consequences. However, it acknowledged that partial negligence existed on the part of the pathologists and the treating surgeons.

While the Commission did not enhance the compensation amount, it increased the litigation costs payable to the patient from Rs 55,000 to Rs 5 lakhs. It clarified that the insurance companies involved were only liable according to the terms specified in their policies.

Conclusion

This case underlines the critical importance of confirming medical diagnoses before proceeding with major surgeries to avoid severe consequences for patients. The NCDRC’s ruling serves as a reminder for medical professionals to adhere to established protocols in diagnostic processes.

To view the order, click on the link below:
View Order

Related Reading

Medical Negligence: Delhi Consumer Court Orders Nursing Home to Pay Rs 20 Lakh for Loss of Fallopian Tube.