Medico-Legal Pitfalls in Oncological Practice: Ethical and Legal Reflections from an Onco-Surgeon’s Experience in India

Abstract

The trajectory of oncological care—spanning initial diagnosis, multi-modal treatment, survivorship, and palliative care—presents a complex landscape of medico-legal vulnerabilities for practitioners in India.¹ Key areas of risk include diagnostic and staging inaccuracies, deviations from standard treatment protocols, inadequate informed consent processes, insufficient documentation, and lapses in multidisciplinary collaboration.² This article, drawing from the first-hand experience of a surgical oncologist, analyses these critical vulnerabilities within the framework of prevailing Indian legal doctrines and professional ethical standards.³ It proposes a series of practical, ethically-grounded strategies designed to mitigate legal exposure while simultaneously advancing the quality of patient-centered cancer care.⁴

Introduction

Oncological practice occupies a distinctive medico-legal terrain where clinical decisions carry profound implications for survival, quality of life, and the allocation of often scarce resources.⁵ The management of cancer involves navigating complex treatment algorithms, managing patient expectations, and making high-stakes decisions under conditions of uncertainty. In India, this inherent complexity is compounded by significant systemic challenges including heterogeneity of healthcare delivery, substantial variation in access to specialist services, and an increasingly litigious public discourse.⁶ The convergence of these factors creates a perfect storm of medico-legal vulnerability that demands careful navigation by oncology practitioners.

The Indian judicial system has witnessed a steady increase in medical negligence cases, with oncology featuring prominently due to the life-threatening nature of the disease and the toxicities associated with treatment.⁷ As a practising surgical oncologist, I have observed recurring patterns of clinical vulnerability that translate into substantial legal exposure. These patterns often emerge at critical junctures in the cancer care continuum—from initial diagnosis through treatment planning, execution, and follow-up. This article sensatizes clinical experience, published evidence, and relevant Indian jurisprudence to map these medico-legal pitfalls systematically and proposes concrete measures that clinicians and institutions can adopt to reduce risk while honoring ethical obligations to patients. The objective is to foster a practice environment where quality cancer care and legal prudence reinforce rather than contradict each other.

Diagnostic Dilemmas and Early Evaluation

The first contact between a patient with potential cancer symptoms and a healthcare provider is frequently decisive in determining the trajectory of both the disease and any subsequent legal proceedings.⁸ In India’s fragmented healthcare system, many patients initially consult general practitioners, broad-speciality surgeons, or practitioners of alternative medical systems prior to specialist oncology referral.⁹ This circuitous route to definitive care creates multiple opportunities for diagnostic delays, which represent one of the most common sources of patient grievance and litigation in oncology.

Delays in recognition of ‘red flag’ symptoms, incomplete or inappropriate initial investigations, and therapeutic attempts without adequate tissue diagnosis or staging are common contributors to late-stage presentation and adverse outcomes.¹⁰ These delays not only worsen prognosis but create retrospective grounds for alleging negligent care when earlier referral could plausibly have altered the disease trajectory. The legal standard often applied is whether a reasonably competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and care would have recognized the need for prompt referral or investigation.¹¹

The mitigation of these risks requires a multi-pronged approach. At the primary care level, structured red-flag checklists for common cancers can standardize the approach to suspicious symptoms.¹² Mandatory referral pathways for concerning clinical findings—such as breast lumps, unexplained weight loss, or persistent hoarseness—can reduce arbitrary variation in practice. Most critically, meticulous documentation of triage decisions, including the clinical reasoning behind either pursuing or deferring specific investigations, provides contemporaneous evidence of reasonable clinical conduct when care decisions are reviewed retrospectively.¹³ Such systems demonstrably reduce the diagnostic interval and create a defensible record of clinical reasoning.

Histopathology, Staging and Diagnostic Accuracy

Tissue diagnosis and accurate cancer staging constitute the fundamental pillars upon which oncologic decision-making is built. Errors at this foundational stage inevitably propagate through subsequent treatment decisions, potentially rendering even technically perfect interventions inappropriate or harmful. Indian single-centre audits reveal non-trivial rates of histopathologic discordance on external review, with some reports indicating clinically significant discrepancies that alter management in up to 10-15% of cases.¹⁴ The medico-legal implications of such errors are substantial, as they may lead to either inadequate treatment of aggressive disease or overtreatment of indolent conditions.

The legal principle of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”) may be invoked when diagnostic errors are so egregious that they suggest negligence without requiring explicit proof of breach of duty.¹⁵ To mitigate these risks, institutional policies should mandate second-opinion pathology for complex or rare tumors, particularly in cases with unusual presentations or borderline morphological features.¹⁶ The use of synoptic pathology templates ensures comprehensive reporting of all prognostically relevant parameters, reducing the likelihood of omission of critical elements. 

Treatment Guidelines, Institutional Variation and Ethical Boundaries

Evidence-based oncology guidelines from respected bodies like the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and India’s National Cancer Grid (NCG) provide detailed, step-by-step frameworks spanning the continuum from initial evaluation through definitive management and palliative care.¹⁷ Strict adherence to relevant guidelines is widely recognized as a hallmark of quality care and provides substantial protection against allegations of negligence. However, Indian oncology practice reveals significant variation from guideline recommendations, often driven by resource constraints, institutional capacity, and patient socioeconomic factors.¹⁸

This deviation from ideal pathways has demonstrable impacts on patient and disease outcomes. Studies from Indian cancer centers have shown that patients receiving guideline-concordant care experience significantly better survival outcomes across multiple cancer types.¹⁹ From a legal perspective, deviation from recognized protocols in borderline clinical situations or “grey areas” where definitive management is not established is not per se negligent if adequately justified and documented. However, unexplained departure from or clear omission of established protocols in either diagnostic evaluation or therapeutic decision-making is likely to be interpreted unfavorably in medico-legal forums.²⁰

The judicial standard established in *Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab* requires that medical professionals exercise “a reasonable degree of care and skill” commensurate with ordinary professional standards.²¹ Courts recognize that medicine is not an exact science and allow for differences of opinion among practitioners. However, when a particular course of treatment is supported by robust evidence and professional consensus, deviation without compelling clinical justification becomes increasingly difficult to defend. Clinicians must therefore carefully balance guideline-concordant recommendations with individualized care, meticulously documenting the clinical reasoning—particularly when decisions are shaped by comorbidities, performance status, patient preference, or limited access to specific therapeutic modalities.²²

Multidisciplinary Decision-Making and Tumor Boards

Multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTBs) have evolved from academic exercises to central safeguards in modern oncology practice.²³ These forums bring together specialists from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, along with pathologists, radiologists, palliative care physicians, and other relevant disciplines to collaboratively develop comprehensive treatment plans. Data from Indian cancer centers demonstrate that MTB reviews alter management recommendations in 15-40% of cases, often enabling access to multimodality therapy and preventing unnecessary or inappropriate procedures.²⁴

From a medico-legal perspective, documented MTB deliberation and consensus provide compelling evidence that a considered, peer-reviewed plan was formulated and followed.²⁵ This collective wisdom substantially strengthens the defensibility of treatment decisions, particularly in complex cases or those involving deviation from standard guidelines. The MTB process demonstrates institutional commitment to quality care and provides a robust mechanism for peer review of clinical decisions.

Operationalizing effective MTBs requires scheduled meetings with consistent specialist participation, clear documentation of discussions and decisions in formatted minutes, assignment of a responsible treating physician, and documented communication of the agreed-upon plan to the patient.²⁶ The absence of MTB input in complex cases, particularly those involving multimodality treatment decisions, may be viewed negatively in litigation, as it suggests departure from established standards of comprehensive cancer care.

Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making

Informed consent in oncology represents a process of shared decision-making that transcends the mere signing of a form.²⁷ This process must encompass thorough discussion of the diagnosis, prognosis, all reasonable treatment alternatives (including the option of no active treatment), material risks and expected benefits of each approach, and the possibility of intraoperative or intratherapeutic contingencies. Indian jurisprudence, most notably in the landmark *Samira Kohli* case, has established that consent must be procedure-specific, comprehensible to the patient, and obtained by the treating physician rather than delegated to junior staff.²⁸

The Supreme Court in *Samira Kohli* emphasized that “a doctor must seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a ‘treatment’ (which includes surgery). The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent; his consent should be voluntary; and his consent should be based on adequate knowledge of the nature and extent of the risk involved.”²⁹ The Court further clarified that the scope of consent extends only to those procedures for which permission was explicitly granted, except in emergencies where life or health is threatened.

Consent practices that are perfunctory—characterized by form signing without adequate dialogue or comprehension—correlate strongly with higher complaint and litigation rates.³⁰ Mitigating this risk involves employing disease-specific consent templates that detail procedure-specific risks, providing patient information materials in regional languages to enhance understanding, using decision aids where appropriate, and thoroughly documenting the key elements of the consent conversation in the medical record.³¹ This comprehensive approach simultaneously enhances patient autonomy, improves therapeutic alliance, and creates robust legal defensibility.

Treatment Delivery, Monitoring and Continuity of Care

The delivery of cancer treatment encompasses surgery, systemic therapy, and radiotherapy, each carrying specific safety demands and associated legal vulnerabilities. Surgical oncology requires rigorous site verification, adherence to surgical safety checklists, and appropriate intraoperative decision-making.³² Systemic therapy demands double-check protocols for drug calculation, preparation and administration, management of expected and unexpected toxicities, and dose modifications based on toxicity and comorbidity. Radiotherapy requires meticulous planning, target volume delineation, quality assurance procedures, and verification of treatment delivery.³³ Errors at any point in these complex processes may cause significant harm and invite legal scrutiny.

Continuity of care represents another critical dimension where legal vulnerability may emerge. This includes appropriate survivorship planning with clear documentation of anticipated late effects and recommended surveillance strategies, robust pathways for escalation of care when complications arise, and systematic efforts to re-engage patients who miss follow-up appointments.³⁴ Documented attempts to contact patients who disengage from care—through telephone calls, registered letters, or other verifiable means—provide crucial evidence of commitment to continuous care when adverse outcomes occur in absent patients.

The legal principle of “abandonment” may be invoked when physicians unilaterally terminate the physician-patient relationship without adequate notice or arrangement for alternative care.³⁵ In oncology, where long-term follow-up is often essential, establishing clear expectations regarding the duration and frequency of follow-up and documenting adherence to these plans is crucial for legal protection.

End-of-Life Care: Ethics, Palliative Integration and Legal Considerations

End-of-life decision-making in oncology—including withdrawal of futile life-sustaining interventions, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, and transition to exclusive palliative care—represents an area of particularly complex medico-legal vulnerability.³⁶ 

The current legal framework requires that decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment must be based on conclusive evidence of the incurability and terminal nature of the illness, must respect patient autonomy through advance directives or surrogate decision-makers where appropriate, and must involve oversight by a designated institutional committee.³⁷ Clinical teams should therefore integrate palliative care services early in the disease trajectory for appropriate patients and meticulously document goals-of-care discussions, family meetings, and the rationale for specific limitation-of-treatment decisions.³⁸ 

Policy Reforms and Future Directions

Addressing the systemic sources of medico-legal risk in Indian oncology requires coordinated policy interventions at multiple levels. Structural reforms could include mandatory MTB review for complex cancers within health insurance empanelment criteria,³⁹ development of national synoptic pathology standards with enforceable second-opinion pathways, creation of structured consent templates in regional languages, and strengthened palliative care integration across public and private sectors.⁴⁰

Capacity-building in primary care for recognition of oncological ‘red flags’ would reduce late presentation and downstream legal conflict, while standardized referral pathways would ensure timely access to specialist care.⁴¹ Educational reforms must embed medico-legal training within oncology curricula, conduct regular institutional workshops on record-keeping and consent practice, and provide ready access to legal consultation for clinicians facing complex ethical-legal dilemmas.⁴² Such initiatives will empower clinicians to practice ethically while reducing legal vulnerability through enhanced awareness and systematic risk mitigation.

Conclusion

Oncology practice in India sits at the complex intersection of nuanced clinical judgment, resource variability, and evolving legal standards. The high-stakes nature of cancer care, combined with increasing patient awareness and litigation, creates a challenging environment where medico-legal vulnerability permeates multiple aspects of practice. However, by embedding multidisciplinary deliberation, second-opinion pathways for critical diagnostics, robust shared decision-making processes, meticulous documentation standards, and early palliative integration into routine practice, clinicians and healthcare institutions can achieve the dual objective of enhancing patient-centered care while reducing legal exposure. Ethical practice and legal defensibility are not opposing imperatives but complementary goals in the pursuit of excellence in cancer care. In the evolving landscape of Indian oncology, this integrated approach is indispensable to safeguarding both patients and the professionals dedicated to their care.

References

1. PRAMESH C.S. ET AL., DELIVERY OF AFFORDABLE AND EQUITABLE CANCER CARE IN INDIA, 15 LANCET ONCOLOGY e223 (2014).
2. National Cancer Registry Programme, Three-Year Report of Population-Based Cancer Registries 2012-2014, INDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH (2020).
3. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).
4. Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, (2008) 2 S.C.C. 1 (India).
5. R. SULLIVAN ET AL., GLOBAL CANCER SURGERY: DELIVERING SAFE, AFFORDABLE, AND TIMELY CANCER SURGERY, 16 LANCET ONCOLOGY 1193 (2015).
6. Express Healthcare, Majority of Cancer Patients Not on Guideline-Concordant Pathways (Sept. 15, 2018).
7. S. MALHOTRA & S. SHARMA, MEDICOLEGAL ASPECTS OF CANCER CARE IN INDIA: A NARRATIVE REVIEW, 57 INDIAN J. CANCER 243 (2020).
8. S. KULKARNI & P. SINGH, DIAGNOSTIC DELAYS IN CANCER CARE: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES IN INDIAN SCENARIO, 10 J. FAM. MED. PRIMARY CARE 567 (2021).
9. P. MATHUR ET AL., CANCER STATISTICS, 2020: REPORT FROM NATIONAL CANCER REGISTRY PROGRAMME, INDIA, 6 JCO GLOBAL ONCOLOGY 1063 (2020).
10. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, GUIDE TO CANCER EARLY DIAGNOSIS (2020).
11. D. DEY ET AL., IMPACT OF REVIEW OF HISTOPATHOLOGY SPECIMENS AT A TERTIARY ONCOLOGY HOSPITAL IN EASTERN INDIA: LESSONS LEARNT, 16 ECANCERMEDICALSCIENCE 1441 (2022).
12. Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, (1969) 1 S.C.R. 206 (India).
13. COLLEGE OF AMERICAN PATHOLOGISTS, CANCER PROTOCOLS AND CHECKLISTS (2023).
14. M. RASTOGI ET AL., QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ONCOLOGIC PATHOLOGY: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE, 65 INDIAN J. PATHOLOGY & MICROBIOLOGY 15 (2022).
15. National Cancer Grid, NCG Evidence-Based Management Guidelines (2021).
16. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 651 (India).
17. C. TAYLOR ET AL., MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM WORKING IN CANCER: WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?, 340 BMJ c951 (2010).
18. V. BEHEL ET AL., IMPACT OF MOLECULAR TUMOR BOARD ON THE CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF CANCER PATIENTS, 27 ONCOLOGIST e783 (2022).
19. National Cancer Grid, Consensus Document on Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (2022).
20. Y.L. BASTA ET AL., IS THERE A BENEFIT OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY CANCER TEAM MEETINGS FOR PATIENTS WITH GASTROINTESTINAL MALIGNANCIES?, 23 ANNALS SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 2430 (2016).
21. H. KAKAR & S. KAKAR, ENHANCING INFORMED CONSENT IN SURGICAL ONCOLOGY: STRATEGIES AND CHALLENGES, 16 J. CANCER RESEARCH & THERAPEUTICS 457 (2020).
22. R. ACHARYA & A. SINGH, INFORMED CONSENT PRACTICES AND LITIGATION PATTERNS IN INDIAN ONCOLOGY, 6 INDIAN J. MED. ETHICS 112 (2021).
23. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, WHO GUIDELINES FOR SAFE SURGERY: SAFE SURGERY SAVES LIVES (2009).
24. NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE CANCER NETWORK, NCCN GUIDELINES FOR SURVIVORSHIP (2023).
25. P.A. GANZ, LATE EFFECTS OF CANCER AND ITS TREATMENT, 25 SEMINARS ONCOLOGY NURSING 47 (2009).
26. S. GUPTA & A. GUPTA, MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION: A SHIELD AGAINST MALPRACTICE LITIGATION, 4 J. MED. L. & ETHICS 23 (2022).
27. N. MENACHEMI & T.H. COLLUM, BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD SYSTEMS, 4 RISK MGMT. & HEALTHCARE POL’Y 47 (2011).
28. D.M. STUDDERT ET AL., DEFENSIVE MEDICINE AND TORT REFORM: A WIDE VIEW, 20 J. GEN. INTERNAL MED. 790 (2005).
29. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 S.C.C. 454 (India).
30. LAW COMM’N OF INDIA, REPORT NO. 241: PASSIVE EUTHANASIA – A RELOOK (2018).
31. INDIAN ASS’N OF PALLIATIVE CARE, GUIDELINES FOR END-OF-LIFE CARE IN INDIA (2023).
32. NATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITY, REVISED EMPANELMENT & DE-EMPANELMENT GUIDELINE FOR HOSPITALS UNDER AYUSHMAN BHARAT PRADHAN MANTRI-JAN AROGYA YOJANA (2021).
33. V. PATEL & P.M. PARIKH, STRENGTHENING PRIMARY CARE FOR CANCER CONTROL IN INDIA, 22 LANCET ONCOLOGY e102 (2021).
34. S.K. CHATURVEDI & A. SARIN, INTEGRATING MEDICO-LEGAL EDUCATION IN ONCOLOGY TRAINING: A NECESSITY IN CONTEMPORARY INDIA, 13 INDIAN J. SURGICAL ONCOLOGY 1 (2022).
35. *Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia*, (1998) 4 S.C.C. 39 (India) (defining medical negligence standards).
36. *Dr. T.T. Thomas v. Elisa*, (1987) 2 S.C.C. 14 (India) (defining standard of care in medical practice).
37. *Savitri Pandey v. Premier Insurance Company*, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 202 (India) (insurance liability in medical negligence).
38. *R.P. Sharma v. State of Bihar*, (2000) 9 S.C.C. 452 (India) (criminal negligence in medical practice).
39. *Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka*, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India) (compensation in medical negligence).
40. *Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee*, (2009) 9 S.C.C. 221 (India) (standard of care in diagnosis).
41. *Laxman Thamappa Kotgiri v. G.M. Central Railway*, (2007) 4 S.C.C. 596 (India) (employer liability in medical negligence).
42. *J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi*, (2002) 6 S.C.C. 635 (India) (consumer protection in healthcare).