A young woman, housewife and homemaker, experienced pain in her right breast. The doctor she consulted prescribed medicines and advised mammography test. A lump in patient’s right breast was reported.

The doctor changed the line of treatment, but the young patient did not get any relief. After about four months, she was admitted at a hospital for the removal of lump; it was sent for biopsy. The result shook the ground beneath patient’s feet – the lump was cancerous. Her right breast had to be removed.

A young man was hit by a motorbike. He sustained severe head injuries, bled from ear and nose and there was laceration on right elbow. He was rushed to the hospital; the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was quite low. Despite every effort by a multi-disciplinary team of doctors, the road accident proved to be fatal; the young man died after two days at the hospital.

His family sued the hospital. It was alleged that the doctors adopted a conservative line of treatment, whereas two independent neurosurgeons had advised decompressive craniectomy. It was also alleged that the hospital lacked in infrastructure to treat road accident victims, evident from the fact that no CT scan was performed.

In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court concurred with the ruling of National Consumer Commission, holding a hospital negligent for involving a trainee anaesthetist during lung surgery.

Suffering from fever and severe cough for six months, the patient consulted his doctor for treatment. The doctor prescribed medicines and advised blood test, cough test and X-ray. There was an impression of taint on the right side of chest. Therefore, the doctor prescribed ATT medicines.

The patient did not get any relief; instead, his condition worsened. He visited another doctor at a health centre. Another X-ray was performed; it did not report any sign of tuberculosis.

The patient was diagnosed with hypermetropia. He underwent cataract surgery at the eye hospital, performed by the eye surgeon. Intraocular lens (IOL) was inserted in both eyes.

The patient kept consulting the surgeon periodically. After four years, he was referred to AIIMS.

For reasons best known to the patient, he sued the eye surgeon after consulting doctor at AIIMS. It was vaguely alleged that he continued to suffer farsightedness even after cataract surgery.

Post-operative complications cannot be attributed to doctors, especially when appropriate post-operative care is rendered; and definitely not if onset of such complications is after a significant time of surgery.

The patient was diagnosed with left inguinal hernia. The surgeon performed laparoscopic surgery to place prolene mesh in order to cover wide hernia defect. The patient was discharged after three days with an advice to undergo surgery for hernia on the right side.

Doctors and hospitals are legally bound to refer patients to another doctor / specialist / higher centre if treatment / procedure falls beyond the expertise or, if necessary, equipment / infrastructure is not available during the course of treatment / procedure. A doctor was recently held negligent for failing to adhere to this legal tenet.