Consumer Rights: Diagnostic centres liable for negligence
Given the increasing dependence of medical professionals on a variety of scans for diagnosing ailments and abnormalities, any negligence on part of a scanning centre or a radiologist could play havoc with the physical and mental well-being of the victim and the family. A recent order of the apex consumer court in Shrivari Sono Scans vs Sureshan highlights one such case where a resident of Kasargod in Kerala had to undergo a series of unnecessary tests and suffer immense anxiety, thanks to an erroneous report given by a diagnostic centre.
It all began with TM Sureshan consulting a doctor for a stomach ache, way back in 2019. The abdominal and pelvic scan showed such serious complications in the liver and gall bladder that the doctor advised treatment from a specialist. Two days later, Sureshan travelled 100 km to Mangalore and consulted doctors at the Kasturba Medical College. Further tests carried out showed no abnormality. A repeat scan showed the first scan to be false. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission here upheld the order of the lower commissions awarding compensation of Rs 25,000 and costs of Rs 3,000 to Sureshan.
There have been instances where the consequences have been extremely grave. In Udayan vs Imaging Point, failure of the ultrasound scans to detect foetal anomalies denied the parents an option to terminate the pregnancy and prevent lifelong suffering for the child and themselves. The scanning centre argued that diagnosing genetic anomalies required a level 2 scan or a target scan, which neither the gynaecologist nor the patient asked for. All four scans were basic scans that could not detect such abnormalities.
After referring the issue to an expert panel from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the commission held the gynaecologist as well as the radiologist guilty of negligence. Considering that the patient was 37 years old and suffered from gestational diabetes, the doctor should have asked for a target scan but failed to do so. The radiologist, too, had an ethical and legal duty to take the history of the patient, ascertain the gestational age and perform the relevant ultrasound scan, which he failed to do. Besides, limb anomalies such as presence or absence of arms, legs and feet should be checked in all standard obstetric ultrasound examinations performed in the second trimester and documented by the radiologist. The report of the scanning centre did not comment on the limbs at all, the commission observed. It directed the doctor and the scanning centre to jointly and severally pay Rs 1.25 crore as compensation and Rs 1 lakh as cost (May 25, 2022, case filed in 2009).
Last year, the Kerala State Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 50 lakh, with 8 per cent interest calculated from the date of complaint (2015) in a similar case. Here again, the baby was born with no lower limbs and hips but several scans done during the pregnancy did not reveal this. The commission held the doctors guilty of negligence for not recommending a level 2 scan and the hospital that conducted the scans equally liable for routinely reporting the increase in the length of the femur in every report, while the baby did not have legs at all. (Jayesh JR vs St Luke Hospital).
Given the enormous financial burden such negligence puts on the victims and the mental pain they undergo, consumer justice should be quick and compensation fully commensurate with the suffering. Unfortunately, in all these cases, the final orders have taken years, exacerbating the victims’ suffering. Award of steep punitive damages by consumer courts and strict disciplinary action by the regulator are also necessary to prevent such carelessness by diagnostic centres.
— The writer is a consumer rights and safety expert
