PET Scan Couldn't Have Saved Patient Who Approached Hospital At Cancer Stage II B, Maharashtra State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Jupiter Hospital

Brief Facts:

Late Mrs Varsha Shende was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment at Jupiter Hospital (“Hospital”). She was primarily under the care of the Hospital's chief oncologist, Dr. Rajendra Bhalavat (“Doctor”). She was advised on several radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and brachytherapy sessions. However, allegedly, the Doctor failed to conduct several essential procedures like a whole-body PET Scan promptly. Despite undergoing treatment, Varsha's condition worsened, and cancer metastasized to her spine and brain, ultimately leading to her demise. Feeling aggrieved, the sons and the husband (“Complainant”) of Mrs Varsha filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Maharashtra (“State Commission”).

The Complainants argued that Jupiter Hospital and the Doctor failed in their duty of care, resulting in both emotional distress and significant financial burden for the family. They sought a compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- for these damages.

Contentions of the Opposite Party:

The Hospital raised objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission. It argued that both the Hospital and the Doctor conducted their business in Thane, not in Nagpur. Furthermore, it asserted that the complaint lacks merit, alleging that the Hospital provided comprehensive medical services and followed standard protocols in treating Varsha Shende's cancer. It disputed the necessity of a whole-body PET scan at the initial stage of diagnosis and denied any negligence in the treatment. Additionally, it claimed that the complaint was filed with the intent of extracting money from the hospital and should be dismissed.

The doctor also contested the complaint, denying any negligence in his examination and treatment of Varsha Shende. He maintained that he followed standard protocols in diagnosing and treating her cancer and argued against the necessity of a whole-body PET scan at the initial stage. He asserted that any spread of cancer was not due to negligence on his part but rather an inherent risk of the disease.

Observations by the Commission:

The State Commission observed that the Doctor carried out all necessary investigations in a prompt manner even when Mrs Varsha came to the Hospital at a late stage when she was suffering from Stage II B Cancer. The Hospital and the Doctor also provided evidence to show that a whole-body PET scan was optional and not at all mandatory. The Complainants failed to present any material on record to prove that the conduction of a whole-body PET scan was mandatorily required. They also failed to show medical negligence and failure of due care on the Doctor's part.

The Complainant relied on an expert opinion by Dr Anand Pathak, wherein the State Commission noted that the opinion did not suggest that the PET Scan was necessary or would have improved Mrs Varsha's chances of survival. As a result, the complaint was dismissed.