Relief to Pathologists - the method of testing, quality of test reagents differs place to place and thus the Test Results may differ. Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

Relief to Pathologists - the method of testing, quality of test reagents differs place to place and thus the Test Results may differ.

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

Case Details :  

Before : Hon. NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI,     

REVISION PETITION NO. 1477 OF 2022

 (Against the Order dated 14/07/2022 in Appeal No. 624/2022 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)

ANIL VERMA V/s. DR. DEVENDRA TRAUMA & GENERAL HOSPITAL & ANR, MATHURA. 

BEFORE:  

  HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER

ORDER Dated : 20 Feb 2023

judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F1477%2F2022&dtofhearing=2023-02-20


Brief facts :

1. On 17.01.2014, the Complainant – Anil Verma - the Patient  underwent few laboratory tests alongwith test for Hepatitis-B (HbsAg) in the Opponent Hospital -  "Dr. Devendra Trauma and General Hospital, Mathura." 

2. It was alleged that the Pathologist – Dr. Shikha Vyas informed HbsAg positive and demanded Rs.20,000/-. He informed that it was serious disease like AIDS and the treatment is available only in the OP hospital. Therefore, it was shock to the Complainant, his BP shot up and he suffered mental agony. 

3. It was alleged that as the patient could not deposit Rs.20,000/-, the OP Dr. Devendra Kumar referred him to RG Kar Medical College, Kolkata. !!  Immediately on 21.01.2014 the patient started his treatment at Kothari Medical Centre, Kolkata.  He underwent the test again and found that it was negative.   Thus, being aggrieved by the wrong report issued by the OPs, the patient filed a complaint before the District Forum, Mathura.

4.       The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the First Appeal before the State Commission, it was dismissed and hence he knocked the doors of the National commission.  

Held :

1.  On careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the OP performed the HbsAg test by HEPACHECK-the dipstick method.  The commission observed that it was the screening test only.  Thereafter, in Kothari Medical Centre, the patient underwent the test again.   The test was done by Q-Polychromatic Chain Reaction (Q-PCR) on 24.01.2014. The HBV DNA, HBeAg was negative. PCR is the most sensitive test for early detection of HBV status.  The test turned out to be negative. 

2. It was thus held that it should be borne in mind that the initial tests were performed by Card method at Kolkata, but the blood was tested by DNA technology (PCR), which gives most accurate results. Therefore, all the quantitative analysis hepatic viral markers for Hepatitis B & E were normal. 

3. The ld. Judge observed that in my view, the Complainant wrongly interpreted the test results. The method of testing, quality of test reagents differs place to place.  The card test has more chances of false positive result.  The PCR/ELISA are most sensitive than card method. In my view there was no negligence while performing the HbsAg test, it was conducted with controls as an accepted reasonable practice. 

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases viz ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 11 SCC 269] and ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’[Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  held that the scope of Revision Petition is limited. Admittedly,  the concurrent findings of facts being noted, there was no any jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, and hence the case was dismissed.

The Pathological findings are the basis for deciding any medical treatment. There are various modes and methods of the Tests and as observed by the hon. commission, the method of testing, quality of test reagents differs place to place. Indeed an important judgment .


thanks and regards


(Adv. ROHiT ERANDE)

Pune. ©


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency – Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital

A Physician is free to decide whom he/she will serve, except in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital “Its in the interest of Patients that Doctors. should not be dragged to the Court unnecessarily”” – National Commission observed while dismissing the Compliant for damages of Rs.2.5 Crores as it prevents Doctors from discharging their duty to a suffering person who needs their assistance utmost. A Physician is free to decide whom he will serve, save in case of Emergency –  Court rejects 2.5 Crore petition against Doctor & Hospital Case : SUMAN TANEJA V/s. METRO HOSPITAL & HEART INSTITUTE & 3 ORS, decided on 02/02/2016. Factual Matrix in nutshell : 1. The Complainant, widow of deceased patient claimed damages to the tune of Rs. Two & half Crores on the ground that her husband who was diagnosed as Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction (IWMI).did not receive the emergency treatment in Golden Hours.The Doctor ...
Read more

A "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.-Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.©

 The "Supreme Judgment" with manifold reliefs to Doctors and Hospital : Perhaps the year end gift for Doctors.  Adv. ROHiT ERANDE.© a. Non availability of Operation Theatre is not a valid ground to hold Hospital Negligent : b. Non functioning of Machines and Equipments cannot be said to be Negligence. c. It is an incorrect assumption to say that, "since surgery was performed by a doctor, he alone would be responsible for different aspects of the treatment required and given to the patient". d. It is too much to expect from a doctor to remain on the bed side of the patient throughout his stay in the hospital. e. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence. f.  In spite of the treatment, if the patient had not survived, the doctors cannot be blamed as even the doctors with the best of their abilities cannot prevent the inevitable g. The doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of  res ips...
Read more

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section

"MD Medicine Dr. fined Rs.41 lakh for doing pleural tapping test without Sonography, that too in Causality section " The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (MSCDRC) in its recent judgment dated 31/03/2017, gave the verdict against the Doctor, but absolved the Hospital.. Case details - Mr.Prashant Tamhane V/s. P.D. hinduja Hospital and anr. CC No.221 of 2003. http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetPdf.do… Facts in short : 1. This is the case of 2002. The wife (since deceased) of the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital after the blood reports revealed symptoms of hepatitis. There she was examined by Dr.Ashit Hegde, the Opponent no.2 Doctor in the present case. At that time he after examining the patient he thought it fit for not admitting the patient. By taking medication she was improving. 2.However after about one month, she had Chest pain and difficulty in breathing. Initial X-ray was normal, but in later X-ray, she was diagno...
Read more