Negligence in Diagnosis, Issued Erroneous Report- NCDRC upholds compensation order

New Delhi: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently upheld negligence charges against a Diagnostic Centre for giving erroneous reports to a patient, who had to undergo a series of unnecessary tests and suffer immense anxiety.

"...we find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld," the Commission observed.

The history of the case goes back to 2019 when the patient who was suffering from stomach pain, consulted the doctor, she advised sonography at Shrivari Sono Scans. It was revealed in the report that there was serious illness in the liver and gallbladder. Thereafter, the treating doctor advised the patient to have expert medical treatment. 

Following this, the complainant went to Kasturba Medical College (KMC) for scanning and further treatment. After undergoing scanning at KMC, it was revealed that he was not suffering from any illness in the liver or gall bladder and that the first scanning centre had issued a wrong scan report, which suggested liver disease.

Therefore, the patient filed a complaint before the District Forum for undergoing mental agony and hardships. The District Consumer Court through the order dated 29.01.2021, partly allowed the complaint and directed the scan centre to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs 3000.

"Complainant did not adduce any evidence of actual financial loss suf ered by him in this regard. But still he managed to go over to Mangalore and conducted test by spending his hard earned money due to wrong mis-leading finding on test results by opposite party and therefore considering the nature and attended circumstance of the case forum finds that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is found reasonable compensation to he paid by opposite party to complainant," the District Consumer Court had ordered.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the District Commission.

"Issuing of wrong scan report is as a result of the negligence by the Pathologist in scanning the patient. It is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence in diagnosing ¯the illness of the patient and issuing an erroneous test result. Issuing wrong report which suggested serious problem with the liver naturally will cause much mental agony and hardship to the complainant," the State Commission had held.

Thereafter, the Scan Centre challenged the State Commission's order before the Apex Consumer Court, arguing that the State Commission erred in granting the order dated 18.04.2023 and upholding the order of the District Forum. 

It was submitted that the patient did not consult the scan centre and the centre did not provide any advice regarding any disease. Therefore, there was no breach of duty on their part. The Scan Centre further submitted that the Sono Scanning was conducted using standard procedures and techniques and there was no dispute regarding the same. Consequently, the patient was given the report, which mentioned the limitations of ultrasound scanning and suggested seeking a review scanning with investigations in case of a difference of opinion.

Meanwhile, the patient submitted that the petitioner was not a Sonologist as claimed by him in the affidavit. He was only an MBBS graduate and did not possess any Postgraduate qualification in medicine from any recognized institute or university to claim as a specialist like 'Consultant Sonologist' or Sonologist. 

It was argued that while the doctor at the Scan Centre could perform USG studies only in Pregnancy Cases, he was advertising his Genetic Clinic as Centre for General Sonology, USG, HRSG, Colour Doppler Imaging, Echo Cardiography (Foetal & Adult) and practicing and signing accordingly and signing USG reports as ‘Consultant Sonologist’/Sonologist.

Also Read: Stent not Removed After PCNL: Hospital, surgeon Slapped Rs 35 Lakh Compensation for Deficiency in Service

The Complainant also pointed out that TCMC-Kerala found the petitioner guilty of a continuing violation of the direction of the Council and had punished him by removing his name from the Register of Modern Medicine for two months. Following deregistering by TCMC on 11.08.2021, DMOH had strictly directed him not to do USG studies other than permitted by PC & PNDT Act. Later, the National Medical Commission (NMC) had also upheld the order of TCMC.

Therefore, the complainant claimed that due to the faulty and fraudulent report issued by the petitioner, he had to approach KMC, Mangalore, which is 100 Km away from his residence, for further investigation and treatment for which he suffered mental agony hardships, damages, sufferings, losses of huge money and time. Accordingly, he prayed for an increase in the quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lakh.

While considering the appeal, the Apex Consumer Court perused the orders passed by both the State Commission and the District Consumer Court and opined that both the Forum had given well-reasoned orders. The NCDRC bench also perused various documents including the report dated 15.07.2019 of Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, and other medical records placed on record, orders dated 30.08.208 and 17.05.2021 of Registrar of Travancore Cochin Medical Council, Certificate of Registration issued by D.M.O. Health, order dated 01.06.2022 of NMC and other relevant orders to hold that "State Commission has rightly come to a finding of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Petitioner..."

At this outset, the Commission also referred to the Supreme Court orders holding that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

Accordingly, the Apex Consumer Court held that there was no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the State Commission's order and upheld the same. 

"Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by Petitioner herein to the Respondent herein within 30 days of this order. As regards request of Respondent herein for enhancement of compensation to Rs.5.00 lakhs is concerned, the same cannot be considered as the Respondent has not challenged the orders of District Forum and State Commission and the same have become final as far as Respondent is concerned. Hence, in the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner herein, request for enhancement of compensation cannot be considered," the top consumer court observed in its order.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/shrivarisonoscansvssureshan-260290.pdf

Also Read: TN Medical Council Files Complaint Against Doctor for Practicing with Cancelled License