Nims to pay up Rs10L for wrong breast operation
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences guilty of “medical negligence” in treating a patient and has directed the city’s prestigious medical facility to pay a compensation of Rs10 lakh to her.
The NCDRC found “deficiency in service” on the part of two “main” doctors — Dr G. Suryanarayana Raju and Dr Aruna Prayag — who provided treatment to the patient “that culminated in a hasty, medically unsupportable, rather insensitive and hence a most traumatic decision to remove her left breast.”
Dr Raju is senior surgical oncologist at Nims, and Dr Prayag is an assistant professor and cytopathologist.
The patient, a resident of Kukatpally and mother of three children, has been waging a long legal battle since she underwent Madden’s mastectomy of her left breast way back in 1997.
The patient, who initially went to Nims for treatment for knee pain, complained of a lump in her left breast, and was referred to Dr Raju.
After the relevant tests were done, Dr Raju in the case sheet noted that the patient had carcinoma. “I went by the pathology report,” Dr Raju said.
The Disputes Redressal Commission agreed that the initial observations of the surgeon leading him to a provisional diagnosis of breast tumour being likely malignant cannot be faulted.
Panel: Doc didn’t follow protocol
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Co-mmission, while holdi-ng Nims guilty of “medical negligence” in treating a patient, has said that no evidence was placed to show that surgical oncologist Dr G. Suryanarayana Raju followed the standard diagnostic protocol, including bilateral mammography and staging of the cancerous tumour before concluding the patient had carcinoma of the left breast and deciding the line of treatment (modified radical mastectomy).
The commission noted that the record had no mention of a single Fine Needle Aspiration (FNA) sample being drawn from the patient though there was a noting by Dr Raju (in his own handwriting) about the findings of the Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC) report.
It also noted that Dr Raju repeatedly recorded the size of the breast lump as 3x3 cm whereas the histopathology report and discharge summary recorded the size as 2x2 cm.
Dr Raju rejected any 'professional negligence' except 'the misleading pathology report'.
He added the surgery was performed by Dr Sridhar on his advice.
Post new comment