Hospital pulled up for advising chemo before biopsy results

State consumer commission says Tata Memorial Hospital doctors should have waited for reports.

Doctors must wait for reports that confirm cancer before suggesting cancer treatment, the state consumer commission observed as it heard a complaint of medical negligence.

Savitri Agarwal, a resident of Chhattisgarh, had filed a case of medical negligence against Tata Memorial Hospital in Parel and Dr Sudeep Gupta, a doctor at the hospital, for diagnosing her with stomach cancer and advising her to undergo chemotherapy.

HT Image

Agarwal alleged that the doctors had jumped to the conclusion that she had stomach cancer and told her to undergo four cycles of chemotherapy without waiting for her biopsy report, which ruled out that she had cancer. The complainant further alleged that she underwent two cycles of chemotherapy at Udaipur following the doctor’s advice.

The hospital and the doctor contended that the report Agarwal had shown to them in March 2007 and clinical evaluation had suggested she had stomach cancer. Investigations conducted in June 2007 at hospitals of Agarwal’s choice had also suggested that she had stomach cancer.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the consumer court, on June 28, dismissed the complaint, observing that Agarwal had failed to prove that there was medical negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor.

However, while dismissing the complaint, the commission expressed its disapproval over the manner in which the doctor handled the case. “The doctor had either overlooked or not waited for the biopsy report brought by the patient from an Udaipur hospital and submitted to this hospital,” the commission said.

“The report, available on March 29, 2007, was collected by the patient in June 2007 after undergoing two cycles of chemotherapy. The report was negative for malignancy.”

The court also held patient responsible, stating that Agarwal ought to have waited for the reports before starting treatment.

“In our opinion, when this report was ready by March 2007, the doctor and the complainant should have waited till they received it. And it would have been prudent on the part of the doctor to insist that Agarwal continue as an indoor patient at the hospital until the hospital received the biopsy report,” the commission said. “In future the doctors should strive to lay hands on such type of biopsy report, if they have referred any sample of biopsy to the laboratory.”