Ultrasound Only an Aid, Cannot Replace Clinical Judgement: Bihar Forum slaps Rs 20 lakh compenstion on Doctor
Medical Negligence
Patna: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Bihar, recently directed a doctor to pay Rs 20 lakh compensation to the husband of a patient, who died of septicemia after the death of her unborn baby inside her womb.
While the treating doctor had dismissed the patient's abdominal pain and health condition by relying on an ultrasound report, the State Consumer Court observed that the doctor believed the ultrasound report and ignored the health condition of the patient.
According to the bench, an ultrasound report is only an aid in diagnosis, and such report has to be co-related with symptoms of patient by medical professional to decide the line of treatment but depending only on the ultrasound report is against established norms of medical practice
Case Background:
The history of the case goes back to 2013, when the complainant's wife had sought treatment from the treating doctor during her pregnancy. When the patient informed the doctor about the lack of foetal movement and pain in the abdomen, the doctor prescribed medicines and asked her to conduct an ultrasound. After going through the report, the doctor assured that there was nothing to worry about.
However, the following day, the pain intensified. Allegedly, when the patient rushed to the doctor, the doctor did not listen to her concerns and asked her to leave. Consequently, the patient approached another doctor, who prescribed medicines without any investigations. Despite taking the medicines, the patient's condition did not improve, and the second doctor referred her to a higher centre.
Following this, the patient, along with her husband, rushed to Patna for better treatment and got admitted to a hospital. The hospital, after thorough investigations, found a dead foetus inside the patient's womb. Even though the doctors at the hospital immediate operated, they could not save the patient's life.
According to the death certificate issued by the Patna-based hospital, the patient died due to Septicemia. Later, when the complainant sought information under the Right to Information regarding the cause of death, the hospital, in its report dated 13.12.2013 reported that the septicemia had occurred due to the death of the child in ovary long time back.
Filing the consumer complaint, the complainant argued that it was the duty of the doctor to investigate and diagnose the patient and thereafter prescribe suitable medicines. However, in this case, neither the first nor the second doctor followed the norms of treatment, resulting in the death of the child in the mother's womb, as well as the resultant septicemia developed in the mother's body, which ultimately became the cause of her death. The complainant accused both the treating doctors of deficiency in service.
Another allegation was regarding the prescription of medicine without an investigation report. It was argued that if the doctor felt that the case was complicated and beyond his control, they should immediately have referred the patient to a higher centre for better treatment. However, the complainant alleged that the first treating doctor prescribed medicines without a report and did not refer the patient to a higher centre. The second doctor also prescribed medicines without any investigation reports, alleged the complainant.
Observations by Consumer Court:
While considering the matter, the consumer court observed that the complications of the deceased wife of the complainant arose only due to deficiency in service and ill advice of the first and second treating doctor. While the first treating doctor appeared before the Commission, the second treating doctor did not appear despite service of notice.
The State Consumer Court observed that a medical professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he/she did possess.
Further, the Commission noted that negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition involves a legal duty to exercise due care, breach of duty and resultant damage, noted the Commission.
"Opposite party no.1 failed to exercise reasonable skill and competence while treating wife of complainant. She did not meet reasonable standard of care as expected from a medical professional," observed the Commission, further taking note of the fact that the doctor "overlooked and ignored the suffering and pain of wife of complainant and was preoccupied with report of ultrasound report unmindful of the fact that there can be error in ultrasound report and condition of patient did not match ultrasound report."
Taking note of the ultrasound report, the Commission observed that "There was clinical discrepancy in report of ultrasound and health condition of wife of complainant as she was under acute pain and distress whereas ultrasound was showing everything to be normal...Opposite party no.1 did not exercise reasonable competence and requisite skill which she possessed while treating wife of complainant and she overlooked the clinical discrepancy which was apparent."
The Commission held that "Had opposite party no.1 been more diligent, attentive, careful and noticed the pain and suffering of wife of complainant she ought to have got 2nd opinion from another ultrasound center but she blindly relied upon the ultrasound report which was incorrect and faulty as it is proven fact that child was dead in mothers womb and subsequently due to infection mother also died due to septicemia."
The Consumer Court further noted that the first-treating doctor was very casual, careless and failed to diagnose the cause of suffering and pain of patient which she could have easily diagnosed had she been more cautious.
"The misdiagnosis was preventable and could have been avoided by slight alertness," observed the SCDRC.
The Commission referred to the NCDRC order in the case of M. Kochar Vs. Ispita Seal, where the National Commission held that while the medical practitioner has discretion in choosing the treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is wider in cases of emergency, but, he must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care according to -the circumstances of each case.
Further, the Commission also referred to the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of V. Kishn Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and another. In this case, the Apex Court observed that in a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquiture operates and the complainant does not prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself. In such a case it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence.
The State Consumer Court observed that the patient goes by the doctor's reputation with the hope of proper care. "It is responsibility of the doctor to provide the best services when they charge for the services rendered by them. Patient accept better and efficient service. In case it is found that service rendered by the doctor is not up to mark and it involves negligence compensation become payable," it held.
Accordingly, the Commission held that the complainant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the doctor was negligent as a result of which his wife died. Therefore, the burden lies on the doctor who treated the wife of the complainant that there was no negligence involved in treatment. The medical professional is not negligent so long as he/she follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of the day, held the Commission.
Further, the Commission noted that the first treating doctor admitted in her written statement that the patient had visited her with some problem and she had advised for ultrasound and after seeing the report, she found everything was normal.
"...she accepted and believed the ultrasound report and ignored the health condition, pain and suffering of wife of complainant and never gave a second thought that there is clinical discrepancy and second opinion from another ultrasound center was desirable by a medical professional and failure of which has resulted in loss of life of complainant's wife," the SCDRC noted.
It further held:
"Ultrasound report is only an aid in diagnosis and such report has to be co-related with symptoms of patient by medical professional in order to decide line of treatment but depending only on ultrasound report is against established norms of medical practice."
The Commission also perused the medical records provided by the Patna-based hospital and concluded, "From the facts, evidence and legal precedents it is concluded that opposite party no.1 failed to exercise the requisite degree of skill, care and competence expected from a qualified gynecologist. The allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service are established. Surksha Diagnostic center who conducted ultrasound has not been made opposite party in complaint case as such no compensation can be granted against it."
With this observation, the consumer court directed the treating doctor to pay Rs 20 lakh lumpsum compensation to the complainant, along with Rs 20,000 as costs of litigation.
"A Lump sump compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Twenty lakhs) shall be paid by the opposite party no.1 to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of order passed by this Commission failing which interest @ 8% p.a. shall become payable. (ii) Cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) to be paid within 60 days from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of order passed by this Commission failing which interest @ 8% p.a. shall become payable," it ordered.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/09/08/neeraj-kumar-jain-bihar-scdrc--474676.pdf
