The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently ruled on a medical negligence lawsuit involving an Andhra Pradeshi doctor. The case concerned a patient who had sought treatment for breast pain and whose cancer diagnosis was delayed. Highlighting important elements of the case, such as the chronology of events, medical treatments given, expert testimony, and legal arguments made, the NCDRC upheld a compensation ruling against the doctor.
The woman initially saw the doctor in 2011 because she was experiencing pain in her right breast. Following a clinical assessment, the physician suggested a pathological test for additional diagnosis and wrote prescriptions for drugs. A mammography test was then performed to evaluate the situation.
The patient’s pain persisted even after taking the prescribed medication, so the doctor recommended surgery to remove the lump in the patient’s right breast. On May 11, 2011, the procedure was performed, and a biopsy of the excised tissue was submitted to a Rajahmundry diagnostic center for examination.
The patient complied with the treating physician’s post-operative care instructions after the procedure. But when the agony continued, she followed her doctor’s recommendation and went to G.S.L Cancer Hospital for more evaluation. At this point, the biopsy result indicated the existence of malignant cells and disclosed infiltrative duct cell carcinoma.
Chemotherapy and radiation therapy were administered at various hospitals as follow-up therapies; these had an adverse effect on the patient’s health. Given the aggressive nature of the disease and the patient’s young age, the patient’s legal counsel contended that a significant delay in receiving the proper diagnosis and therapy administration had a negative impact on the patient’s result.
In 2015, the District Consumer Court rendered a decision in support of the patient, ordering the physician to provide restitution for medical malpractice. Afterwards, the State Commission of Andhra Pradesh supported this ruling, which the NCDRC doctor had contested.
The legal counsel of both parties made arguments during the NCDRC proceedings. The doctor’s legal representative highlighted the physician’s flawless record of decades in medicine while pointing out that the patient’s age and the results of early testing made it difficult to diagnose cancer.
However, the patient’s attorney emphasized the gaps in diagnosis and treatment, providing professional medical opinions to back up the allegations of carelessness. The attorney contended that the unfavorable result was caused in part by the reliance on inadequate assessments and the neglect to perform additional diagnostic testing.
In its decision, the NCDRC accepted the lower courts’ conclusions on the treating physician’s negligence and lack of performance. It was mentioned that fast disease progression resulted from a failure to recommend necessary studies in a timely manner. The lack of solid justifications for failing to record recommendations or patients’ resistance to additional testing was another point raised by the court.
In the end, the NCDRC maintained the compensation award, noting that the doctor’s obvious negligence was indicated by the patient’s ongoing therapy without appropriate diagnostic testing. The court’s ruling highlighted how crucial prompt and thorough medical evaluations are when dealing with serious illnesses like cancer.
To sum up, the NCDRC’s decision emphasizes the legal ramifications of medical malpractice in the detection and management of cancer. This emphasizes how important it is for medical professionals to follow set protocols, carry out in-depth assessments, and maintain open lines of contact with patients in order to prevent unfavorable outcomes and legal ramifications.
SOURCE:
SARKARI DOCTOR
