Sunday, October 04, 2026 | 10:47 PM ISTहिंदी में पढें
Business Standard
Notification Icon
userprofile IconSearch

Doctors held liable for ignoring case history

The National Commission observed that despite the patient's history of cancer, the doctors had treated her for seven months for a lumbar problem without checking for malignant growth

medication errors
premium

The Commission held the hospital vicariously liable for the compensation imposed on both doctors | Representative Picture

Jehangir B Gai

Listen to This Article

Jyotsna Mohapatra was a cancer survivor who had undergone treatment at various hospitals. In January 2013, she developed acute pain on the left side of her lower back. She consulted her family doctor, who advised her to get a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her lower back and then referred her to Dr Sanjeev Patnaik, an orthopaedic surgeon practising at Apollo Hospital in Bhubaneswar, Odisha.
 
During the consultation, she informed Dr Patnaik about her history of cancer, the removal of her thyroid in 1971, breast cancer treatment in 2002, and endometrial cancer in 2009, when she underwent surgery to remove her uterus. The MRI report revealed a huge abnormal mass near the L1 and L2 lumbar vertebrae. However, Dr Patnaik ignored this history and merely advised pain relief medication and a warm compress. When she did not get any relief, she consulted Dr Patnaik again. He diagnosed acute low back pain and sciatica and advised a major operation involving a laminectomy and discectomy. He also referred her to Dr Debabrata Biswal, a neurologist.
 
Following the medical advice, she was admitted on July 23, 2013, to Apollo Hospital. On July 24,  Dr Biswal performed a laminectomy and discectomy. The hospital discharged her on July 29, 2013. During follow-up, she complained of persistent pain and difficulty in walking. The doctors prescribed painkillers, but she did not get any relief.
 
In September 2013, she underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan, which revealed bone destruction, enlarged lymph nodes and hydronephrosis of the left kidney. A needle biopsy confirmed that the enlarged node or mass was due to a high-grade malignant neoplasm.
 
Jyotsna was then admitted to a cancer centre in Cuttack, Odisha. Based on an MRI scan, the doctors concluded that the mass was too large to remove and started palliative radiotherapy along with morphine. She died on March 21, 2014.
 
Her son, Debashis Das, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) against Apollo Hospital and its doctors, alleging medical negligence. He accused the hospital and treating doctors of failing to refer his mother to an oncologist available at the hospital. He sought compensation of ₹10 crore for incorrect diagnosis and treatment.
 
The National Commission observed that, despite the patient’s history of cancer, the doctors had treated her for seven months for a lumbar problem without attempting to check for malignant growth. It concluded that the doctors had failed to apply even ordinary and elementary medical knowledge, which constituted negligence. By the time they detected the malignancy, it was too late to treat the advanced disease, and they could only administer palliative care. The Commission, therefore, concluded that none of the treating doctors at Apollo Hospital had evaluated the patient holistically. It indicted the doctors for failing to exercise due care and caution in the performance of their duties.
 
Accordingly, in its order dated September 17, 2026, delivered by Bharatkumar Pandya on behalf of the Bench presided over by Justice A P Sahi, the National Commission awarded a total lump-sum compensation of ₹5 lakh. Orthopaedic surgeon Dr Sanjeev Patnaik would pay ₹3 lakh, and neurosurgeon Dr Debabrata Biswal would pay the remaining ₹2 lakh. The Commission held the hospital vicariously liable for the compensation imposed on both doctors. It allowed two months for compliance, after which the amount would carry interest at 6 per cent for the period of delay. In addition, it directed each opposite party to pay ₹5,000 as litigation costs.
 

The writer is a consumer activist
 
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper