Medical Scan Center Deemed Deficient, Ordered to Pay Compensation for Wrong Diagnosis.


04 November 2024 Civil Revision >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Medical Negligence >> Consumer Rights  

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has dismissed a revision petition in the matter of Shrivari Sono Scans v/s B. Sureshan T.M, filed by a medical scan center, upholding the concurrent findings of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (SCDRC) and the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod, which found the center deficient in its service.

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a patient who received a scan report from the petitioner’s center indicating serious liver and gallbladder illnesses. Subsequently, scans conducted at Kasturba Medical College (KMC) revealed no such abnormalities. The patient alleged that the erroneous report caused significant mental agony and hardship.


 

 

The District Forum found the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service and directed them to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as litigation costs. The SCDRC upheld this decision, leading the petitioner to file a revision petition with the NCDRC.

The petitioner argued that the sono-scanning procedure did not fall under medical negligence and that they had not provided any medical advice to the respondent. They also contested the validity of the KMC report and highlighted the limitations of ultrasound scanning.

However, the NCDRC, after reviewing the evidence and the orders of the lower fora, found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings. The NCDRC noted the stark contradiction between the petitioner’s scan report and the subsequent KMC report, which indicated no abnormalities.

The NCDRC also addressed the respondent's contentions regarding the petitioner's qualifications and professional conduct. The respondent had argued that the petitioner, despite lacking the necessary qualifications, was practicing beyond his authorized scope and had engaged in misleading advertising. Evidence was also presented regarding disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council (TCMC) and the National Medical Council (NMC).

The NCDRC emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised when the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. It concluded that the lower fora had provided well-reasoned orders based on the evidence presented.

"Both the Fora below have given well-reasoned orders, we are in agreement with their observations and findings and find no reasons to interfere with the same," stated the NCDRC in its order.

The NCDRC dismissed the revision petition and imposed costs of Rs. 15,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to the respondent. The respondent’s request for an enhancement of compensation was denied, as they had not challenged the orders of the lower fora.

This ruling reinforces the responsibility of medical diagnostic centers to provide accurate and reliable reports, highlighting the potential for significant harm caused by erroneous medical information.


  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019