In a major ruling highlighting the importance of diagnostic accuracy, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld an order directing a Ludhiana based hospital, an oncology surgeon, and pathologists to pay Rs 55 lakh in compensation for performing extensive facial cancer surgery without a confirmed diagnosis.
The decision reinforces that life altering medical procedures cannot be justified on the basis of suspicion alone and that established clinical protocols must be followed at every stage of patient care.
The case dates back to 2014 when a woman, who was a practising dentist, noticed a small lesion on her right cheek. Concerned about the growth, she sought medical evaluation at Mediways Hospital in Ludhiana. A biopsy was conducted and the tissue sample was sent to Dayanand Medical College for histopathological examination.
The pathology report described the findings as suggestive of malignant melanoma. However, it clearly stated that further confirmatory tests such as immunohistochemistry were required to establish a definitive diagnosis. Despite this caution, the treating oncology surgeon proceeded with surgery within a short span of time.
The patient underwent radical facial surgery that involved wide excision of facial tissue along with removal of lymph nodes from the neck. The procedure caused permanent facial disfigurement and nerve damage, leading to long term physical and emotional distress.
Subsequent medical assessments revealed that the cancer diagnosis had not been conclusively established at the time of surgery. The patient later required corrective treatment and follow up care, including medical intervention abroad, significantly affecting her quality of life and professional career.
In 2018, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the hospital and doctors guilty of medical negligence. It observed that the pathologists failed to provide a definitive diagnosis and that the surgeon acted in haste by performing radical surgery without waiting for mandatory confirmatory tests.
The commission awarded Rs 55 lakh in compensation. Of this amount, Rs 45 lakh was to be paid by the hospital and surgical team, while Rs 10 lakh was imposed on the pathologists.
Both the hospital and doctors challenged the ruling, arguing that the treatment decision was based on medical judgment. The patient also appealed, seeking enhancement of compensation to Rs 95 lakh, citing permanent disfigurement, psychological trauma, loss of income, and prolonged medical expenses.
After reviewing all submissions, the National Commission upheld the finding of negligence. It stated that while removal of the mole could have been reasonable, the extent of surgery was unjustified without diagnostic confirmation. The commission emphasised that patient consent does not override the duty of care owed by medical professionals.
However, the commission declined to enhance the compensation, noting that the patient had consented to the procedure despite being informed that the diagnosis was provisional.
(Rh/ARC)