Follow Us
Pushpa Girimaji
Do radiologists come under the purview of consumer courts? Is it possible to seek compensation it they fail to detect abnormality in a foetus?
If a radiologist fails to detect an abnormality during ultrasonography or gives an erroneous report, thereby denying you an opportunity to terminate the pregnancy, you have the right to demand compensation for the consequences of negligence.
Can you quote a case where the Commission has awarded compensation?
Let me quote a case decided by the apex consumer court in May 2016 which has its origin in the birth of an underdeveloped child to Anil and Anju Dutt in May 2009. The child was not only grossly underweight, but had no left arm and a kidney. Its lungs were not fully developed and had a fused spinal cord, requiring surgery.
In their complaint, the parents contended that the two ultrasonographies (USGs) had not indicated problem in the development of the foetus and both the sonologists had stated that “the foetal spine, trunk and limbs were normal”. If only the reports had pinpointed the problem, the mother could have opted for medical termination of pregnancy or the doctor could have provided the necessary treatment to stimulate the full growth of the foetus.
The radiologists argued that they had only conducted basic/routine sonography, following standard procedure, lasting about 10 minutes, during which it was not possible to detect abnormalities. In this case, the foetus was lying on its side with upper limbs tucked underneath, so they could not have possibly detected the absence of a hand. They also argued that if the doctor suspected an abnormality and asked for sonography for identifying it, they would have conducted targeted scan, lasting an hour or two or even a few sittings.
Dismissing these arguments as frivolous, a Bench of JM Malik and Dr SM Kanthikar, pointed out that even for routine scan, the sonologist measures the (a) crown rum length, (b) head circumference, (c) bi-parietal diameter, and (d) abdominal circumference. Therefore, even if one assumes that the two radiologists performed only routine obstetric scan, they should have observed and taken measurements of head, limbs and the spine. So how did they miss the limbs? Besides, the abdominal circumference will certainly give a clue about abdominal organs and the kidney, the Commission said.
The Bench also pointed out that both the sonologists had claimed that because of the position of the foetus, they could not see the limbs. However, both of them said in their reports that “foetal spine, trunk and limbs are normal”. This proved the negligent and casual approach of the two sonologists while performing USG. The Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 15L, to be paid jointly and severally by the hospital as well as the two sonologists. (Anil Dutt and Baby Simi Vs Vishesh Hospital, Dr Kaushalendra Soni and Dr GS Saluja CC no 221 of 2010)