The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Committee has ordered a private hospital to pay a family of a man who died of cancer in 2006, not as compensation for medical negligence but as an ex-gratia payment for treatment.
The appeal was filed by a private hospital and a doctor against a February 16, 2018 order by the Delhi State Consumer Commission. The commission had previously found the private hospital and doctor negligent in the cancer treatment of the 54-year-old man.
The hospital was ordered to deposit 20 Lakh rupees as compensation. From the amount, Rs 5 Lakh was for the patient’s family, and the doctor was asked to pay an additional amount of Rs 2 Lakh.
The commission said, “Medical negligence cannot be inferred merely because a later diagnosis of cancer was made. There must be evidence to establish that the treatment given was not in accordance with accepted medical practice or that the doctor failed to exercise reasonable care and skill expected in the circumstances.”
Also see: Haryana Doctor Ordered to Pay 2 lakh Compensation over Medical Negligence in Kidney Surgery
In September 2005, a 54-year-old man was diagnosed with tuberculosis involving the L2-L3 region after he complained of back pain and went through an MRI in a private hospital on 9 September 2005.
He was admitted to the hospital on 11 Sept. 2005 and underwent debridement the next day. On 16 Sept. 2005, he was discharged from the hospital.
However, the man’s condition started to deteriorate after his discharge, according to the reports. On December 27, 2005, he went to the same hospital again and was treated by another doctor who sought the histopathology report.
The medical records indicated an undifferentiated malignant tumour, with potential diagnoses including malignant fibrous histiocytoma, liposarcoma, or lymphoma.
He was then referred to an oncologist at AIIMS and was examined on January 3, 2006. The man later died on January 23, 2006.
According to the reports, his family complained that the doctor and the hospital did not pay attention to the biopsy report; hence, his health deteriorated, and his cancer treatment was delayed.
However, the doctor and the hospital said that they were never shown the biopsy report that was outsourced from another diagnostic centre.
The NCDRC found no evidence establishing when the report was collected or whether it had been previously presented to the doctor.
The NCDRC said that the decision for tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment was correct according to the MRI report that was initially produced to the doctors. They also stated that the tissue was sent for biopsy.
Referencing the findings by the Delhi Medical Council, they said that the tumour was highly malignant and that earlier cancer treatment was not proven to alter the clinical outcome.
The commission admitted that there was a coordination gap that resulted in the delay in the Biopsy reports reaching the patient and his family, but they concluded that a delay cannot be stated as medical negligence.
According to the final court order, the complainant was given Rs 5 Lakh along with interest that was already deposited by the hospital as an ex-gratia payment for treatment costs.
It was also ordered that the Rs 2 lakh that was imposed on the doctor as compensation for the medical negligence should be returned if it had already been deposited.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)