E-Paper
Consumer panel fines lab ₹1 lakh over flawed ultrasound report in Ludhiana
The commission, in its order, partly allowed a complaint filed by Ramanjeet Kaur Gill, a permanent resident of Canada, and directed Gamma Scan and Path Lab and Dr Manjit Singh Binepal to pay her ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment and additional medical expenses
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, has held a city-based diagnostic laboratory and its doctor responsible for professional negligence after an ultrasound report allegedly failed to detect a sizeable uterine fibroid and bilateral ovarian cysts in a 32-year-old woman.
The commission, in its order, partly allowed a complaint filed by Ramanjeet Kaur Gill, a permanent resident of Canada, and directed Gamma Scan and Path Lab and Dr Manjit Singh Binepal to pay her ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, harassment and additional medical expenses. The amount is to be paid within 30 days, failing which it will carry interest at 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.
The complaint was filed after Gill underwent an ultrasound of the abdomen and pelvis at the facility on February 10, 2024, following complaints of fatigue. The report stated that her uterus was normal and specifically recorded that “no fibroid is seen”, while mentioning a cyst in the right ovarian region.
However, dissatisfied with the findings, Gill underwent another ultrasound at Rednet Diagnostics on the same day. The second report detected a 33x27-mm lesion in the upper posterior wall and fundal region of the uterus, besides a large complex cyst in the right ovary and another cyst in the left ovary. The report concluded that she had a fibroid uterus and a complex right ovarian cyst/endometrioma.
Gill subsequently consulted a specialist gynaecologist and laparoscopic surgeon in Chandigarh. According to the commission’s order, further investigations, including an MRI, and surgery revealed a fibroid uterus and bilateral endometriotic cysts. She underwent multiple procedures, including cystectomy, myomectomy, laparoscopy, adhesiolysis and excision of endometriotic nodules.
The commission, headed by president Sanjeev Batra and member Monika Bhagat, took a particularly serious view of the discrepancy between the reports. The diagnostic centre had argued that there was a difference between a routine ultrasound and a more advanced transvaginal ultrasound, and that the complainant had not specifically requested the latter. The commission, however, rejected this defence, observing that if a routine ultrasound could detect a cyst in the right ovary, it should also have been capable of detecting a cyst in the left ovary.
The commission further observed that the failure to detect a sizeable uterine mass, while positively declaring that no fibroid was present, could not be treated merely as a technical limitation of the examination.
The order noted that an incorrect “normal” report could be more dangerous than an inconclusive report because it could give a patient false reassurance and delay necessary medical intervention. The commission also observed that the uterine abnormality detected in the subsequent examination was not something that could have developed or shifted within a matter of hours or a few days.
The commission noted that Gill had to undergo further examinations and seek specialist medical advice because of the conflicting reports.
At the same time, the commission did not grant the ₹20 lakh compensation sought by the complainant and assessed the compensation at ₹1 lakh cumulatively. The commission directed the laboratory and the doctor to comply with the compensation order within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order.
