A breast cancer survivor was referred for evaluation and treatment of suspected tuberculosis after investigations showed no malignant cells but raised the possibility of TB. Months later, when recurrent cancer was diagnosed, the family alleged that the delay had cost the patient valuable treatment time. The Commission, however, viewed the case through the lens of clinical judgment rather than hindsight.
The patient had remained under oncological care for nearly a decade following treatment for breast cancer. During follow-up, investigations revealed enlarged lymph nodes, but the cytology report suggested granulomatous lymphadenitis with no evidence of malignant cells. Acting on those findings, the treating oncologist referred her to a physician specialising in tuberculosis, after which she underwent treatment at a dedicated TB facility.
When cancer recurrence was detected several months later, chemotherapy was restarted. The family alleged that the initial diagnosis had been wrong, resulting in an avoidable delay in cancer treatment. Additional allegations were also raised regarding chemotherapy, Morphine administration, CT scan, and the qualifications of the treating oncologist.
The Commission found little merit in those claims.
It observed that the referral for tuberculosis was based on the investigations available at the time, which did not demonstrate recurrent malignancy. In fact, the pathology report itself suggested tuberculosis and specifically recorded the absence of malignant cells. Referring the patient to the appropriate speciality under those circumstances reflected accepted medical practice rather than negligence.
The Commission also accepted that Capecitabine and Morphine were recognised therapies for advanced metastatic breast cancer, while the CT scan had been advised to rule out brain metastasis after the patient developed persistent vomiting. No evidence established that these decisions departed from accepted standards of care.
Equally significant was the absence of independent medical evidence from the complainants. Multiple expert bodies, including the Medical Council, found no professional negligence on the part of the treating doctors.
Allowing the appeals filed by the hospital and doctors, the Commission set aside the earlier compensation order and dismissed the complaint.
The ruling reiterates a principle that lies at the heart of medico-legal adjudication: doctors are judged on the information reasonably available when clinical decisions are made, not on diagnoses that emerge with the benefit of hindsight. A later change in diagnosis may alter treatment, but it does not automatically invalidate the medical judgment that preceded it.
Source: Order pronounced by Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 27th May, 2026.
