It started like an ordinary complaint. A mild headache, recurring and localized to one side. A government officer, approaching middle age, sought medical attention when dizziness followed. Initial evaluations showed no anomalies.
Treatment began for what was diagnosed as a psychological condition. Medications were prescribed and adjusted across several visits.
Months went by. The discomfort stayed. No new investigations were ordered. No imaging studies. No second opinions. The assessment stayed fixed on psychiatric grounds, even though the symptoms remained unresolved.
Eventually, seeking clarity, the patient visited another doctor. This time, a scan was ordered without delay. The discovery was grim—a malignant brain tumour. Surgery was performed, but by then, the disease had advanced.
Treatment followed, yet the time lost in reaching the diagnosis proved critical. The patient passed away while the legal process was still unfolding.
A claim of medical negligence was filed. The first forum reviewing the case agreed that the delay in initiating radiological investigation—especially a CT scan—was a lapse in care. While the initial psychiatric approach may have been reasonable, continued symptoms without further examination pointed to a failure of clinical judgment. Compensation was awarded.
That decision was appealed. The credibility of expert witnesses was contested, particularly one who had moved from medical practice into law. A higher forum overturned the compensation, focusing largely on witness reliability.
Eventually, the matter reached the National Consumer Commission. A more holistic review was undertaken, examining the statements of multiple medical professionals involved. It concluded that the absence of a timely CT scan amounted to negligence—not extreme or reckless, but enough to breach the duty of care expected of someone treating symptoms suggestive of deeper neurological issues.
The conclusion didn’t hinge on whether the doctor could have predicted malignancy. It hinged on whether persistent symptoms should have led to further inquiry. When improvement stalls, investigations must deepen. This case did not reflect an error of action—it reflected an error of omission.
Source : Order pronounced by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 30th December, 2024.