Loss Of Vision In One Eye Due To Undiagnosed Malignancy In Optic Nerve, NCDRC Upholds Order Against Superb MRI & C.T. Scan

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) upheld the Chandigarh State Commission's order against Superb MRI and C.T. Scan, a diagnosis and scanning centre, which furnished an incorrect MRI Scan which led to delayed treatment, resulting in the loss of vision in the Complainant's left eye, attributed to an undiagnosed malignant growth in the optic nerve. The appeal filed by the Scanning Centre was dismissed. Brief Facts: Kanav Chopra (“Complainant”) filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (“State Commission”) against Superb MRI and C.T. Scan (“Scanning Centre”). The allegations were against Dr. Tejinder Kaur, the operator of the Scanning Centre for furnishing an incorrect MRI report which did not depict radiological symptoms necessary for a proper diagnosis. The incorrect report led to delayed treatment, resulting in the loss of vision in the Complainant's left eye, attributed to an undiagnosed malignant growth in the optic nerve. The State Commission found the Scanning Centre deficient and negligent and ordered the Scanning Centre to pay Rs. 20 Lakh compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Scanning Centre filed an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”). Contentions of the Scanning Centre: The Scanning Centre contended that the Complainant and his guardian visited the scanning centre voluntarily without any medical advice or prescription. Dr. Tejinder Kaur advised the Complainant's father to seek specialist opinion for the MRI but the father insisted on a routine MRI without injection. The initial MRI report of 13.01.2007 did not indicate any abnormality in the Sella region, which is contested to have been altered later. Additionally, subsequent medical examinations at other institutes did not indicate any suspicion of malignant growth until later. Further, the delay in treatment initiation could not be attributed to the initial MRI report, and subsequent treatment procedures were conducted appropriately based on further diagnosis. Contentions of the Complainant: The Complainant submitted that the initial MRI report was incorrect and failed to identify the malignant growth compressing the optic nerve. Later examinations and reviews of the same MRI scan confirmed the presence of the growth, indicating negligence in reporting the initial MRI. The delayed diagnosis due to the incorrect initial report led to the worsening of the condition and eventual loss of vision. Further, the compensation awarded by the State Commission was justified given the severity of the consequences and the negligence of the Scanning Centre. The Complainant relied on medical reports and expert opinions confirming the misdiagnosis and its detrimental impact on the Complainant's health. Observations by the NCDRC: The NCDRC observed that the initial MRI conducted on 13.01.2007 was done voluntarily by the Complainant's father, without any prescription or provisional symptoms from a medical practitioner. It was a precautionary measure, and there was no indication of any growth in the ocular region of the child. Even subsequent examinations did not initially detect any suspected growth. However, suspicion of a growth arose after a more detailed examination at another hospital named PIMER, Chandigarh, leading to a contrast MRI being advised on 05.02.2007. This contrast MRI confirmed the existence of a growth compressing the optical nerves. Subsequent reports from medical institutions confirmed the existence of a growth even in the initial MRI scan dated 13.01.2007, which was not initially detected. The negligence of the appellant doctor, Dr Tejinder Kaur, was evident in the misinterpretation or failure to detect the growth in the initial MRI report. This negligence was also confirmed by reports from the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre and the Grewal Eye Institute. The NCDRC acknowledged the difficulty in determining the quantum of compensation but upheld the compensation awarded by the State Commission at Rs. 20 lakh. This compensation was considered just and reasonable considering the permanent loss of vision in one eye due to the destruction of the optic nerve, which could have been prevented with timely treatment. Subject to earlier adjustments, the Scanning Centre was directed to pay Rs. 10 Lakh to the Complainant for the medical expenses incurred for treatment and chemotherapy at the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre. The appeal was dismissed and the decision of the State Commission was upheld.Case Title: Superb MRI and C.T. Scan vs Kanav Chopra (Minor) and Anr. Case No.: First Appeal No. 487 of 2011 Advocate for the Appellant/Scanning Centre: Mr P.S. ...

Loss Of Vision In One Eye Due To Undiagnosed Malignancy In Optic Nerve, NCDRC Upholds Order Against Superb MRI & C.T. Scan

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Loss Of Vision In One Eye Due To Undiagnosed Malignancy In Optic Nerve, NCDRC Upholds Order Against Superb MRI & C.T. Scan

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers