A grieving son’s allegation that his mother died due to treatment by an unqualified cancer specialist placed a major hospital under scrutiny — raising a question courts are seeing with increasing frequency: how far does formal registration define a doctor’s legal competence?

The patient had been admitted to a multispecialty hospital and treated for advanced-stage carcinoma under a physician described as an oncologist. When her condition deteriorated and she later passed away, the family sought a second opinion from another hospital, where reports questioned the cancer diagnosis itself.

Believing that wrongful treatment had been administered by a doctor lacking proper oncology credentials, the son filed a consumer complaint alleging negligence by both the hospital and the treating physician.

The core of the allegation rested on an RTI response from the State Medical Council, which showed that while the doctor held an MBBS and MD in Tropical Medicine, additional oncology-related qualifications had not been formally registered with the council. The complainant argued that this alone disqualified the doctor from treating cancer patients.

The hospital countered with extensive documentary evidence.

It produced certificates showing the doctor’s specialised training, international oncology memberships, research affiliations, and long-standing clinical focus in cancer care. These included certifications from recognised global medical bodies and participation in oncology associations — all of which had been verified at the time of appointment.

After examining the full record, the State Commission rejected the claim of negligence.

It held that competence cannot be judged solely on registry listings when substantial proof of specialised training, experience, and professional recognition exists. The doctor was found to possess adequate qualifications to manage oncology patients at the relevant time, and the hospital had acted responsibly in assessing his credentials before engagement.

With no evidence of wrongful diagnosis or substandard treatment established, the negligence allegation could not stand.

The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

The ruling underscores an important distinction in medical liability: while regulatory registration is critical, courts will look beyond formal labels to assess real-world competence, training, and professional credibility when evaluating claims of negligent practice.

IML Insight

As healthcare becomes increasingly specialised, credential verification must go deeper than degree titles alone. Hospitals are expected to validate clinical expertise through training history, institutional affiliations, and professional track records. At the same time, negligence claims will not succeed merely on technical registration gaps when substantive competence is clearly demonstrated.

Source : Order pronounced by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 5th December, 2025.