NEHRA Vs. SHALINI VIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -PETITIONER was the second opposite party before the District Forum, where the first respondent Smt. Shalini Vij had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant Smt. Shalini Vij was having high-fever for which she approached the second respondent Springdales Medical Centre for treatment on 23. 5. 2004, wherein she was advised to have ultrasound of her abdomen. The petitioner conducted the ultrasound of abdomen on 24. 5. 2004 and informed the complainant that she was having 'abscess' of size 80x62x53 ml. on the 'left lobe of the liver'. It was the case of the complainant that when the third respondent Dr. Ratan, who is surgeon by profession, informed her that she has to be operated immediately, they decided to have a second opinion for which they went to Ganga Ram Hospital, where they were not admitted as there was no place and thereafter they went to Jaipur Golden Hospital, wherein, ultrasound of abdomen was conducted on 25. 5. 2004, which revealed that the complainant did not have any liver abscess, hence there was no need for any surgery or treatment. According to the complainant, this was the simple case of urine infection, which was diagnosed by the petitioner as a case of liver abscess, which was clearly wrong and contradicted by an ultrasound report taken only 24 hours from the first ultra sonography report carried out by the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, alleging medical negligence, a case was filed before the District Forum. The matter was contested by all the three opposite parties, namely, petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before us. The District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed all the three opposite parties before them, i. e. , petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 along with cost of Rs. 5,000 within 30 days failing which it was to carry interest @ 8% p. a. till the date of payment. Aggrieved by that order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, while holding the second and third respondents before us, not guilty of any medical negligence, held the petitioner Dr. Nehra, the radiologist, alone responsible for giving wrong report and was made liable him to pay the amount awarded by the District Forum, hence this revision petition before us by the petitioner.

(3.) WE heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the material on record. We have carefully gone through the report relating to the complainant of ultra sonography prepared by the petitioner. The finding is "liver abscess left lobe". We have another report of Jaipur Golden Hospital dated 25. 5. 2004, whereas finding given in the form of impression is "essentially normal study. Please correlate clinically". A case is made out before us, that the radiologist gave the report. It was for the Consultant Physician, in this case, the Gynaecologist, who should have correlated the ultrasound report with clinically findings. We are afraid that we see no merit in this contention of the petitioner, for the simple reason that the petitioner is trying to mix up the two reports. The ultra sound report given by the petitioner is an unqualified one stating clearly and unequivocally "liver abscess left lobe". It is only the Jaipur Golden Hospital, where they use the words, "please correlate clinically". The petitioner cannot take advantage of the advice rendered by some other radiologist.