East zone medico legal services pvt

1. Pathologist case
East zone medico legal services pvt. ltd
PATHOLGIST/LABORATORY:
Requisite tests not conducted in time: Tantamount to deficiency in service: Complainant entitled
to compensation. Omission to act in time -Compensation -Complainant suffering from fever -
Referred to Apollo Hospital for certain tests -Requisite tests not conducted on the day of taking
of sample -Contention, Microbiology Department of Hospital ceases to work after 5 p.m., not
acceptable -Laboratory attached to hospital is 24 hours laboratory -Non- conducting of tests on
the day of taking of samples tantamount to deficiency in service - Complainant entitled to
compensation.
Shahul Hameed v. M/s. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. II (2002) CPJ:189.
PATHOLOGIST/ PEDIATRICIAN:
Doctor conducting tests, not liable for negligence of consultant physician: Not liable to pay
compensation. Medical Negligence -Doctor who conducted necessary tests charged professional
fee -Not prescribed any Medicine- Not liable for negligence of consultant physician of infant.
Pathologist not liable to pay compensation. Gardinal Tablet Prescribed for infant of one month
with out conducting tests-Condition deteriorated -Opposite party pediatrician negligent in
rendering professional services therefore Liable to pay compensation.
Shyam sunder Tantia (Dr.) v. Deepika Rajasthan S.C.D.R.C. I (2002) CPJ:411
FAILURE TO DO INVESTIGATIONS:
Fracture: X-ray essentially required after two to three days of plaster: Failed to insure
instructions: Liable to pay compensation -Failure of Advice Communication -Compensation -
Hand fractured -Plastered ~ Union of the two pieces of bones not according to proper alignment -
Opposite parties aware of the fact that X-ray essentially required after two to three days-Failed to
ensure that instructions given in writing and patient's relatives have been made to understand the
importance of repeated X-ray -Liable to pay compensation.
Laxmi v. Dr. S.K. Govil Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 335
BLOOD REPORT DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT LABS: VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE
INVOLVED: DECLINED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION:
Blood report of baby conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories, results showed
different reading of bilirubin -Negligence alleged on par(of physician and pathological
laboratories -Dispute involved consideration of voluminous evidence -Forum declined to
exercise jurisdiction -Order of Forum upheld in appeal.
Supriti Modak v. Gokul Ch. Modak West Bengal S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 219.
Complainant not turned up for cross-examination, failed to substantiate the allegations levelled

2. in complaint: Complaint dismissed for want for evidence. Premature attempt to separate placenta
without even waiting for spontaneous delivery - Patient died-Complainant not turned up for
cross-examination failed to substantiate the allegations levelled in the complaint -Absence of
proof by way of evidence, averments of complaint by themselves cannot be accepted -Complaint
dismissed for want of evidence.
Rangannagari Yadav Reddy v. Dr. Vijaya Kumari Andhra Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:
391.
ERROR OF JUDGMENT IN DIAGNOSIS NOT NEGLIGENCE:
Error of Judgment in Diagnosis not contributed to type of suffering: Opposite party absolved
from negligence: No deficiency in service: No compensation -Histo-pathology Cytology Report
issued by opposite party on the biopsy specimen - Report diagnosed the case as sclerosing
adenosis, post inflammatory state and terminal ductal hyperplasia Examination of same slide and
block about 40 days after disclosed that, "patient having an advanced breast cancer" -Patient
suffering from cancer confirmed -Error of judgment on part of opposite party established -
Contention, wrong diagnosis recorded in the Histopathology Report resulted in avoidable
sufferings and ultimate death of patient -Contention not acceptable. Error of judgement not
contributed to the type of suffering which the patient had to undergo -Ailment if would have
been detected 45 days earlier, position would have been no different -Opposite party absolved
from the stigma of negligence -Complainant failed to establish deficiency in service, not entitled
to any compensation.
M.P. Balamani v. Medical Administrator, Ravi Kirloskar Memorial Hospital & Research Centre
Karnataka S.C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ: 483.
Examination casual & careless:
Loss of vision: Failed to proved allegations of negligence: No relief - Casual and careless
examination by opposite party resulted in loss of vision -Complainant failed to prove the
allegations of negligence on part of opposite party of not diagnosing glaucoma, which was
diagnosed with next ophthalmologist so not entitled to any relief.
T.N. Ghosh v. Dr. V. Pahwal West Bengal S..C.D.R.C. II (2001) CPJ:473.
.
DIAGNOSIS WRONG:
Pathological examination done in - nature of report, no treatment advised: No negligence on
parties proved. Wrong Diagnosis- Compensation -Complainant's wife suffering from some
disease, taken for pathological examination -Contention, wrong pathological report given, patient
suffering cancer not diagnosed -Damages claimed -Pathological examination done in the nature
of report, no treatment advised -No fault/negligence on behalf of opposite parties proved -
Opposite parties not liable for death of complainant's wife -Complaint dismissed.
Raj Kumar v. Dr. Ajay Gupta Uttar Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ:495.

3. WRONG DIAGNOSIS NOT AMOUNT TO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:
Wrong Diagnosis-Complainant having severe chest pain -Undergone coronary angiogram and
Angioplastry -Not satisfied with treatment given -Admitted in another hospital, undergone by-
pass surgery -Compensation claimed -Diagnosis is forming of opinion on examination of patient-
opinion may vary from one expert to another-wrong diagnosis not amount to deficiency in
service, no compensation.
Chandrasekar v. Malar Hospitals Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2001) CPJ: 137
MISMATCH BLOOD TRANSFUSION:
Complainant alleges negligence due to mismatch blood transfusion given to the deceased by a
doctor of P.G.I. Awarded Rs. two lacs as compensation by State Commission -Hence appeal -
Whether there is a serious deficiency and negligence on the part of P.G.I. and its attending
doctors ? [Yes].
P.G.I., Chandigarh v. Jaspal Singh National C.D.R.C. III (2000) CPJ:32.
PATHOLOGICAL TEST CONDUCTED NEGLIGENTLY:
Blood Test -Blood of complainant's daughter tested by opposite party -Cave positive report for
infection -Suspicion raised -Got blood samples tested at other places -Negative for infection -Act
of opposite party is negligent -Complainant is to be compensated.
Shashi Bala v. Sushil Kumar Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:205.
Pathological Tests: Report False & Incorrect:
Unfair Trade Practice -Laboratories conducting Pathological tests -Preparing incorrect and false
report -Is unfair trade practice.
Shashi Bala v. Sushil Kumar Punjab S.C.D.R.C. II (2000) CPJ:205.
SONOGRAPHY REPORT WRONG WAS INCORRECT: NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE:
Wrong Sonography Report -Deficiency in Service -Compensation -Sonography report,
Intrauterine Fatal Death on 13.6.1995- Complainant's wife delivered child on 2.1.1998 -
Compensation claimed for expenses incurred due to wrong report-Complainant's wife got
aborted, conceived again -Report dated 11.10.1995 speaks of pregnancy of 10-12 weeks which
itself suggests that complainant's wife conceived again after abortion -Fact of abortion
suppressed -Sonography report dated 13.6.1995 not wrong -No deficiency in service proved -
Complaint dismissed.
Malkhan Singh v. Modern X-Ray Sonography & Patho Centre ~ Madhya Pradesh S.C.D.R.C. II
(2000) CPJ: 441.
WRONG DIAGNOSIS:
Wrong Diagnosis and Treatment -Compensation -Deceased having chronic duodenal ulcer

4. operated, BUN-normal, urine albumin being (+ + + ) -Blood pressure not recorded -Deceased
operated inspite of low blood haemoglobin -Complainant failed to prove the allegations -Renal
problem suppressed by opposite party not proved -No evidence produced to show investigation,
diagnosis and treatment given in Government Hospitals -Negligence on part of opposite parties
not proved -Complainant not entitled to compensation.
Saraswathi v. M/s. Vimala Hospital (P)Ltd. Tamil Nadu S.C.D.R.C. I (2000) CPJ: 115.