Wrong Report Shows Partial Ligament Tear: Hospital, Radiologist told to pay compensation
Ferozepur: Observing that due to the wrong diagnosis given by the hospital and radiologist, the patient had to take multiple opinions, the District Consumer Commission Ferozepur has directed them to pay the Complainant Rs 70,000 as compensation. President of the Commission, Amardeep Singh Shergill asked them to pay Rs 20,000 for the amount the complainant had to pay for getting...
Ferozepur: Observing that due to the wrong diagnosis given by the hospital and radiologist, the patient had to take multiple opinions, the District Consumer Commission Ferozepur has directed them to pay the Complainant Rs 70,000 as compensation.
President of the Commission, Amardeep Singh Shergill asked them to pay Rs 20,000 for the amount the complainant had to pay for getting second opinion and Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental harassment and agony that the patient suffered due to the wrong report which showed Anterior Cructate Ligament Tear & Mild Joint Effusion.
The case goes back to 2019 when the complainant upon being hit by a car had received several injuries and even after being under treatment of various doctors he couldn't get back his health. When he approached the treating hospital as mentioned in this case, an MRI was recommended for treatment and the radiologist at the hospital conducted the same.
The MRI reflected that Anterior Cructate Ligament Tear & Mild Joint Effusion. After examining the MRI report the treating doctors at the hospital suggested surgical operation for recovery.
Later, the complainant got more scannings and consultations at several hospitals, diagnostic centres and all the reports revealed that there was no problem of ligament tear. Thus, the complainant alleged that there was a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in the treating hospital and complained before the Consumer Court.
On the other hand, the hospital and the radiologist denied that there was no problem in the ligament tear. They further contended that all the other scanning and consultations were done after 25 days and that is why there was every possibility that the tear healed.
They further pointed out that in the present case, the complainant was diagnosed with anterior cruciate ligament and as per the first diagnose the complainant had partial tear (grade II), which was clearly mentioned in the first line of the report.
It was only a partial tear and not the complete ACL rapture. In partial tear, end of the torn dual ligament fibres do not go apart and remained in close approximation so get healed, submitted the hospital and radiologist. They further contended that as the next MRI was done after a gap of 25 days it was enough time for healing the partial tear.
Pointing out that the healing process is faster in children, the hospital further pointed out that the patient was low risk patient because of no instability of joint and it is only grade III tear when the ends of fibres go apart and surgical intervention is required.
After listening to the contentions of both the parties, the Consumer court studied all the reports concerned in this case and noted that all the other reports suggested that there was no problem of ligament tear.
"Opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 (Hospital and Radiologist) are given wrong report without applying the proper medical procedure as per the medical science, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 & 2," noted the Commission.
Further pointing out that because of the wrong report given by the treating hospital, the complainant had to get two opinions for the clarification and had to spend huge amount for further opinion from different diagnostic centre, the Commission noted that the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental agony as well due to the wrong report.
Thus, allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the hospital and radiologist to pay Rs 20,000 as the amount spent for obtaining opinions from various diagnostic centers and another Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment within a period of thirty days.
As the hospital was insured under the doctor Indemnity policy, so the court gave it the liberty to claim this amount from the insurance company for payment of the awarded amount to the complainant as per terms and conditions of their insurance policy.
To read the Commission order, click on the link below.
M.A in English
Barsha completed her Master's in English from the University of Burdwan, West Bengal in 2018. Having a knack for Journalism she joined Medical Dialogues back in 2020. She mainly covers news about medico legal cases, NMC/DCI updates, medical education issues including the latest updates about medical and dental colleges in India. She can be contacted at email@example.com.