TB patient given chemotherapy after wrong cancer diagnosis: Doctor, hospital slapped Rs 23.36 lakh compensation
Medical Negligence
Jaipur: A permanent Lok Adalat in Bharatpur recently ordered a doctor and a hospital to pay compensation to a patient for a wrong diagnosis. The patient, who hails from Bharatpur, allegedly was subjected to chemotherapy for cancer, but it was later discovered that she was suffering from tuberculosis (TB).
In its order dated August 24, passed by Presiding Officer Gambhir Singh along with members Yogesh Kumar Sharma and Rajnikant Sharma, the Lok Adalat ordered compensation of Rs 23,36,774 to the patient.
According to the IANS report, Advocate Rajesh Pachauri said the patient had visited Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hospital in Jaipur in October 2022 with abdominal pain and other health issues. She was advised to undergo diagnostic tests at another centre. When reports raised suspicion of cancer, treatment was reportedly started without a confirmatory test.
She subsequently underwent repeated rounds of chemotherapy, but her condition did not improve.
In January 2023, her family took her to Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, where tests revealed she had tuberculosis rather than cancer. The diagnosis was confirmed at Shri Braj Seva Samiti Tuberculosis Hospital in Vrindavan. Her health improved after being placed on TB treatment, IANS has reported.
Meanwhile, the hospital and doctors denied negligence, further stating that only Rs 29,750 had been paid to the hospital.
However, the Lok Adalat observed that the incorrect diagnosis subjected the patient to unnecessary and severe treatment, causing physical and mental suffering as well as financial loss. She had sought Rs 95 lakh in compensation, including Rs 15 lakh for medical expenses and Rs 80 lakh for mental, physical and financial losses, along with Rs 21,000 towards litigation costs.
The court awarded Rs 23,36,774 to the patient. The amount includes Rs 20 lakh compensation for mental anguish, physical suffering and financial loss, and Rs 3,36,774 towards medical expenses supported by bills. The larger medical‑expense claim was rejected due to insufficient documentary evidence.
