A retired gentleman with a longstanding history of rectal pain and prior surgical interventions began experiencing renewed symptoms: pain, bleeding, and discomfort during bowel movements. Seeking care under a government health scheme, he underwent a colonoscopy, revealing an anorectal polyp. Surgery followed to remove the growth, and he was discharged with routine follow-up instructions.
But the relief was short-lived. Months later, his pain returned—accompanied by pus discharge and aggravated symptoms. He was re-admitted for further investigation, where a biopsy confirmed a diagnosis far more serious: malignant melanoma of the rectum.
From here, the journey turned into a medical maze. He was referred to a cancer facility for advanced care, where he underwent a major surgery—an abdominal perineal resection. Days later, complications necessitated a second surgical procedure. His health declined rapidly.
Within weeks, he suffered a cerebrovascular accident, a stroke triggered by bleeding inside the brain. According to his family, he was left unattended for several critical hours before a neurologist from outside the hospital was finally called in.
Despite repeated attempts to transfer him to a facility equipped for neurological emergencies, no meaningful support came from the referring institution. Desperate pleas, letters to hospital authorities, and even a police station visit yielded no timely response. Eventually, the patient succumbed to the complications—never having received specialized neurological treatment.
A legal case followed, claiming negligence in surgical care, post-operative management, and failure to escalate critical care when it was needed most.
The initial forum agreed, holding both the cancer hospital and the government institution jointly liable. Compensation was awarded to the family, noting that the patient was left unmonitored during a medical crisis and denied a crucial transfer when time was of the essence.
On appeal, the judgment was contested. Arguments were made about lack of expert testimony, standard surgical complications, and procedural diligence. But the commission held firm—stating that not all medical negligence cases require expert reports, especially when systemic gaps and patient abandonment are clear from the record.
The evidence spoke for itself: delays in action, failure to coordinate emergency neurological care, and an admission that the second surgery was meant to correct earlier issues. The commission noted that medical professionals have a duty that extends beyond the operating table—especially when complications unfold after discharge, under their continued responsibility.
Negligence in this case wasn’t about one misstep—it was about an entire chain of ignored warning signs, delayed decisions, and institutional apathy. The appeal was dismissed, and the original ruling stood.
Source : Order pronounced by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 3rd June, 2025.