The complainant Surinder Kaur (here-in-after referred to as complainants) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Dr. Jaswinder Singh Romana (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month November, 2015, he became pregnant. She alongwith her husband consulted with Dr.Anju Garg C/o Garg Nursing Home, Ajit Road, Bathinda, she suggested to get the ultrasound done from opposite party. On 26.11.2015, the complainant got conducted ultrasound. After conducting the ultrasound, opposite party issued ultrasound report with remark “Findings are suggestive of Single early abnormal intrauterine gestation of 6 weeks 1 day with Missed abortion" i.e. abnormal child and suggested her and her husband to abort the child immediately on account of not having good health of the child. As such, the complainant got aborted the child from Dr. Anju Garg as per report of opposite party. She was also suggested by opposite party to take treatment for normal child and she took treatment from various doctors including Dr.Anju, Dr. Usha Madaan, Preet Hospital, Civil Hospital & Dr. Rajni Jindal etc. and spent about Rs.2,50,000/- on the treatment.
It is alleged that in the year 2016, the complainant again got pregnant and she consulted with Dr.Rajni Jindal C/o Jindal Heart Institute and Infertility Centre, Bathinda and started taking treatment from her. Dr.Rajni Jindal asked the complainant to get the ultrasound done from opposite party. On 18.11.2016, she got conducted ultrasound and after conducting ultrasound, opposite party issued ultrasound report "Findings are suggestive of Early abnormal intrauterine gestation of 7 weeks 4 days with Blighted ovum & decidual tissue mass". He also reported that there was internal bleeding and 11 ml. blood was internal bleeded that means massive blood was bleeded and suggested her to abort the child immediately, otherwise it will danger to her life. After obtaining ultrasound report from opposite party, the complainant approached Dr.Rajni Jindal and requested for further line of action. Dr.Rajni Jindal, under the influence of report of opposite party, advised for abortion early in the morning on very next day and prescribed some medicines to the complainant and advised to come to the hospital on next day.
It is further alleged that opposite party asked the complainant to get the child aborted and at that time, she was mentally disturbed. Dr.Rajni Jindal gave medicines for abortion as per report of opposite party, but the complainant decided not to destroy the foetus. No medical complications happened for five days, the complainant was advised by elders and by her own gut feeling to get ultrasound from another doctor and then it was found that foetus was healthy and O.K.
The complainant alleged that she realized that opposite party gave wrong reports firstly in 2015 and then again in 2016. On 6.12.2016, again she got done ultrasound from Bhalla Colour Doppler & 4D Scanning Centre, Faridkot, it issued ultrasound report and conveyed the complainant and her husband that the child in the womb is healthy and growing properly. She again got done ultrasound from Satyam Scan Centre, Bathinda, it also issued the ultrasound report and conveyed her and her husband that the child in the womb is healthy and is growing properly.
It is also alleged that thereafter the complainant approached opposite party and showed the ultrasound reports issued by the scanning centre and asked opposite party as to why he issued such wrong report to the complainant, but opposite party failed to give proper reply and stated that his report is O.K. She also showed the total reports to Dr.Anju and Dr.Rajni Jindal. Dr.Rajni Jindal on 6.1.2017 duly mentioned/given a remark that "Wrong report did not place Misoprost.”
The complainant further alleged that she also moved an application dated 7.1.2017 to Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Bathinda regarding negligent act done by opposite party. On this, investigation was got done and competent doctors of the hospital gave their opinion that there is a negligence on the part of opposite party in this matter. Dr.Kundan Kumar Pal, Investigating Officer gave his report in this regard. In this report, it is clearly established that opposite party never asked for second ultrasound and he never gave this remarks in his report dated 18.11.2016.
It is further alleged that due to wrong reports and negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant got her child aborted in the year 2015. Now again, she is under deep stress for 2nd time abortion with Dr.Rajni Jindal. She also spent about Rs.2,50,000/- for her treatment as the false reports prepared by opposite party in 2015 and 2016.
The husband of the complainant filed one consumer complaint No.166 of 14.6.2017 that was decided on 19.6.2018 with the opinion that no finding of this Commission is required on the main allegation of the complainant/Rajiv Kumar against opposite party and it is also made clear that this order will not prejudice the right of Rajni @ Surinder Kaur.
The complainant also alleged that due to negligence on the part of opposite party, the complainant has suffered from great mental tension, agony, harassment, botheration etc. The complainant time and again requested opposite party to compensate her for his negligence, but to no effect.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite party to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- besides costs of complaint to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- or any other additional or alternative relief.
Upon notice, opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant is not 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'. There has neither been any deficiency of service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. The complainant has not approached before this Commission with clean hands and she has suppressed material facts. That intricate and complicated questions of law are involved in the complaint. They require voluminous evidence for the purpose of deciding the complaint. As such, the matter needs to be referred to the civil court. The complainant has not any cause-of-action to file the complaint. This Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint. The complainant has filed this false and fictitious complaint against opposite party and has unnecessarily been harassed by dragging him into uncalled for litigation. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint. There is no negligence on the part of opposite party, he has performed his duties to the best of his capability and as per medical norms.
It is pleaded that opposite party is fully qualified for doing the diagnostic ultrasound and has proper certificates in this regard from the competent authorities. He has been practicing for the last more than 25 years in this line without any complaint of any sort from any of the patients. The reliability of the reports made by opposite party carries so much weightage that despite both the referring doctors in this case, having their own ultrasound scanning machine, had referred the patient to opposite party. There has been nothing against the medical norms by opposite party for which he can be blamed.
It is further pleaded that the actual facts of the case are that the patient Rajni aged about 28 years came for ultrasound of early pregnancy on 26.11.2015 having been referred by Dr.Anju Garg. After completing the necessary formalities, opposite party performed transvaginal ultrasound of the patient. Her LMP according to the referring doctor was 27/8/2015. According to LMP, the age of the pregnancy was 13 weeks. The ultrasound showed a foetus (Embryo) of 6 weeks and 1 day without any cardiac activity/heartbeat. On the basis of the ultrasound findings and period of pregnancy, opposite party gave the impression "findings are suggestive of single early abnormal intrauterine gestation of 6 weeks 1 day with missed abortion." The films of the ultrasound done giving this impression shall be produced as a part of evidence by opposite party. It would justify the impression given by opposite party.
It is further pleaded that the patient never approached opposite party with regard to the ultrasound done or any complication complaint. As such,impression given by opposite party was never negated by any of the doctors at any point of time. The patient approached opposite party after a gap of about 1 year on 18.11.2016 with a fresh pregnancy. This time, she was referred by Dr Mrs.Rajni Jindal. According to the patient, LMP was 1.10.2016 and her period of pregnancy according to LMP reported was 6 weeks and 6 days. Again after completing the requisite formalities, transvaginal ultrasound was done by opposite party. Ultrasound findings were "The gravid uterus contains a single unhealthy gestational sac measuring 26 mm corresponding to 7 weeks 4 days with no foetal pole or yolk sac in it." It was also found that there were bulges of the decidual tissue along posterior wall of G.sac & a 31x33x20 mm(Vol.11ml) echopoor zone along the right side of gestational sac suggestive of perisac hemorrhage. Both the ovaries were observed to be normal therein. Left ovary showed 18 mm cystic mass. No pathology was detected in the adenexa. As per the procedure, during scanning, after observing the image, three measurements were taken to come to the average measurement of the Sac. The scale for measuring three measurements is in built and a part of the software. All three calculations are done on the basis of inbuilt scale by taking three different orthogonal planes. In this case, the average measured as visible to opposite party and as calculated upon the inbuilt scale of the computer came to be 26 MM. The average had been accurately calculated and mentioned on the report. The findings were given as suggestive of early abnormal intrauterine gestation of 7 weeks 4 days with blighted ovum and desidual tissue mass. These findings were on the basis of the impression seen on the ultrasound and period of pregnancy. Since it was found that there was a single unhealthy gestational sac measuring 26 mm, as per the medical literature 25 mm or more, empty gestational sac is to be diagnosed as failed pregnancy that will be as close to 100 %. As such, the report of opposite party is in line with medical guidelines. In rare of the rarest cases, if the pregnancy still develops, the Sonologist cannot be held negligent regarding the same. On the basis of the medical guidelines in such like situation, it is not justified for sonologist to recommend rescan. Referring doctor on the basis of clinical examination/observation and lab reports can advice re-scan. Now, since the referring doctor had advised for review report for cardiac activity, the patient could have come to opposite party and re scan would have been done and latest developments would have been detected, but the patient after getting the scan done on 18.11.2016 never turned up to opposite party.
Opposite party has also pleaded that the report of the medical board is already a part of record that has been placed on record by the complainant. The medical board has suggested that there is no discrepancy between literature and USG findings. They have also held that usually such cases lead to non-viable pregnancy and as such cases would mean where the MSD is more than 25 MM. In this case, as per report of opposite party and documents placed on record by the complainant herself, the MSD has been 26 MM that is more than 25 MM. The observation of the medical board that due to intra-observer variations, a follow-up scan/TVS/serial B HCG evaluation could be done if referring clinician/radiologist/sonologist wants, fully justifies act of the opposite party because the opposite party had given its observation after taking into account the intra-observer variations as mentioned in the medical literature who had increased the MSD from 16 to 25 MM as in the present case it was 26 MM that admittedly was more than even the prescribed intra-observer variations. MSD level had been raised to 25 MM only after considering the medical miracles where the pregnancy still occurred when the limit was 16 MM. So even in this case, if the pregnancy still occurs after 25 MM, the same as per medical literature has been taken to be close to hundred percent and the opposite party cannot be blamed for the same.
Opposite party has further pleaded that even the board constituted by the Civil Surgeon on the request of the complainant for expert opinion does not find any prima-facie case of medical negligence on part of opposite party. The report of the board has not alleged any discrepancy on part of opposite party and has rather stated that usually such cases lead to non-viable pregnancy. Had there been any negligence on part of the opposite party, the board so constituted would have recommended for action against opposite party and admittedly, no such action has been recommended. Even the Civil Surgeon on the basis of report held nothing against opposite party. As such, no negligence is proved against opposite party.
On merits, opposite party has pleaded that on inspecting the documents, it has been observed by him that on his report dated 18.11.2016, there is a note given by treating doctor in her handwriting mentioning "Sir Please Review for Cardiac activity" however the complainant for reasons best known to her did not come to opposite party for such investigation that now she alleges to have got done from Faridkot Bhalla Scan Centre that was after 18 days from the report given by opposite party. No wrong report has been issued by opposite party to the complainant. On 18.11.2016, the treating Dr. Rajni Jindal had advised D and E asking the patient to come fasting on 19.11.2016 as per copy of her prescription placed on record by the complainant. After seeing the USG reported dated 6.12.2016, she suggested for further treatment and overwriting on previous prescription as "wrong report do not place Miso Prost" and encircled the same. The said encircled overwriting upon on the prescription slip was based on the report dated 6.12.2016, but the overwriting contents do not falsify the report, rather it is clarification by the dealing doctor for her treatment of not to place Miso Prost "which is medicine for abortion" based on USG report dated 6.12.2016 which showed viable pregnancy. In further written version, opposite party has reiterated his version as pleaded in the preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, opposite party has prayed for dismissal of complaint.
In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit dated 16.07.2018 (Ex.C-1), and the documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-19).
To rebut the evidence of the complainant, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Jaswinder Singh Romana dated 10.08.2018 (Ex.OP-1/1), affidavit of Dr. J Sidhu, DGO MRCOG dated 20.09.2018 (Ex.OP-1/2), affidavit of Dr. Amit Kaur dated 20.09.2018 (Ex.OP-1/3) and documents (Ex.OP-1/4 to Ex.OP-1/8).
We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file carefully.
Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings and detailed above.
We have given careful consideration to these submissions.
In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2015, she became pregnant. She consulted Dr. Anju Garg C/o Garg Nursing home, Bathinda and said doctor suggested the complainant to get ultrasound done (Ex. C-4). On 26-11-2015, complainant got conducted ultrasound from the opposite party. The opposite party in para No. 12 of his affidavit (Ex. OP-1/1) has admitted that he performed transvaginal ultrasound and ultrasound showed a foetus (Embryo) of 6 weeks 1 day with missed abortion.
The Ultrasound report dated 26-11-2015 is placed on file (Ex. OP-1/4). It has been mentioned in this report :-
“IMP : Findings are suggestive of Single early abnormal intrauterine gestational of 6 weeks 1 day with missed abortion.”
The complainant has alleged that opposite party suggested the complainant and her husband to abort the child immediately on account of having not good health and accordingly complainant got aborted the child whereas the pleading of the opposite party is that he never advised any kind of abortion. According to opposite party further action treatment was to be decided by the referring doctor.
The complainant again became pregnant in the year 2016 and on 18-11-2016 she was referred by Dr. Rajni Jindal for ultrasound from the opposite party. The opposite party admitted this fact in aforesaid para No. 12 of the affidavit (Ex. OP-1/1) that after a gap of one year on 18-11-2016, the complainant again approached with fresh pregnancy and according to LMP her pregnancy was 6 week and 6 days. The opposite party conducted transvaginal ultrasound and findings were, as per report “The gravid uterus contains a single unhealthy gestational sac measuring 26 mm corresponding to 7 weeks 4 days with no foetal pole or yolk sac in it. It was also found that there were bulges of the decidual tissue alongwith posterior wall of G Sac and a 21x33x20 mm (Vol.11 ml.) echopoor zone alongwith the right side of gestational sac suggestive of perisac hemorrhage. Both the ovaries were observed to be normal therein. Left ovary showed 18 mm cystic mass. No pathology was detected in the adenexa.
Ex. OP-1/5 is the ultrasound report dated 18-11-2016. At the end of this report it has been mentioned :
“IMP – Findings are suggestive of Early abnormal intrauterine gestation of 7 weeks 4 days with Blighted ovum & decidual tissue mass.”
The complainant alleged that opposite party suggested her to abort the child immediately otherwise it will be danger to her life but this time, she did not opt to go for abortion and on 6-12-2016 of her own, got conducted ultrasound conducted from Bhalla Colour Doppler & 4 D Scanning Centre, Faridkot. Ultrasound report dated 6-12-2016 (Ex. C-13) of said centre reveals:-
“One Intrauterine Gestational Sac is seen. Gestational age by CRL is about 9 weeks and 3 days. Cardiac and Somatic Activity seen. Impression : Normal on going pregnancy of gestational Age 9 weeks 3 days”
As per Ex. C-8 on the basis of ultrasound report dated 18-11-2016 (Ex. OP-1/8) of the opposite party, the treating doctor, Dr. Rajni Jindal advised D & E and asked the complainant to come fasting on 19-11-2016. She has also given remark on the said prescription slip “Wrong report do not place Miso Prost” The opposite party in reply to para 10 on merits has admitted this fact that Dr. Rajni Jindal given remarks regarding wrong report and encircled the same after seeing USG report dated 6-12-2016 but the plea of the opposite party is that this remark does not falsify the report of the opposite party rather that is clarification by the treating doctor for her treatment of not to place Miso Prost which is medicine for abortion based on USG report dated 6-12-2016 which showed viable pregnancy. This contention of the opposite party is surprising. When the treating doctor has specifically mentioned wrong report and changed line of treatment on the basis of second report issued by Bhalla Colour Doppler and 4 D Scanning Centre, Faridkot, which she earlier decided on the basis of report given by opposite party, it cannot be said that this remark does not falsify the report of the opposite party.
Ex. C-15 is the Obstetric Sonography report dated 30-12-2016 issued by Satyam Scan Centre. This Report also reveals :-
“IMP – 12 Weeks 6 day live intrauterine Pregnancy”
The opposite party has placed and referred medical literature Diagnostic Criteria for Nonviable Pregnancy Early in the First Trimester. It is mentioned in this literature that :
“These studies, in combination, suggests that it is prudent to use a cutoff of 25 mm (rather than 16 mm) for the mean sac diameter with no visible embryo in diagnosing failed pregnancy. This would yield a specifically and positive predictive value of 100% (or as close to 100% as can be determined). When the mean sac diameter is 16 to 24 mm, the lack of an embryo is suspicious for, though not diagnostic of failed pregnancy.”
Therefore, from the aforesaid literature it emerges that when the mean sac diameter is 16 to 25 mm, lack of embryo is suspicious for and not diagnostic of failed pregnancy. In such, circumstances, re-scan of the patient is necessary and should have been advised which action was not taken by the opposite party.
The husband of the complainant Rajiv Kumar filed complaint before Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 07-01-2017 (Ex. C-16) and requested Civil Surgeon to take legal action against the said doctor as he is playing with the life of general public by giving wrong ultrasound reports. He also attached all the report issued by opposite party to his wife (complainant) alongwith his complaint. On this complaint, Dr. Kundan Kumar Pal as Inquiry Officer cum District Vaccination Officer conducted inquiry and recorded statement of the parties.
Ex.C-17/Ex. OP-1/8 is the Inquiry report. It has been mentioned in this report that Dr. J S Romana (opposite party) has suffered statement that on 26-11-2015 ultrasound of Rajni was conducted in which TVS and Trans abdomen scan was done and after furnishing report, it was asked by him for further confirmation after a week but he has not advised for getting done MTP.
To go into the deep of the matter in controversy, a request was made by Inquiry Officer to Civil Surgeon to depute Radiologist and Gynaeologist for expert opinion and accordingly, Dr. Hargurjit Singh, M.D. Radiodiagnosis and Dr. Alka Garg, M.D. Gyane were deputed, who have given their opinion as under :-
“Any case with MSC > 25 mm and without yolk sac and fetal pole is labelled as anembryonic pregnancy or blighted ovum, which appears to be the case in question when it was evaluated by Dr. J S Romana. As per definition, there is no much discrepancy between literature and USG findings. Usually such cases lead to non viable pregnancy. However, keeping in view intra/observer variation in measurement of MSD (neam sac diameter) variable patient position and to 100% confirm the diagnosis, a follow up scan/TVS)/serial B HCG evaluation could be done if referring clinician/radiologist/sonologist wants.”
The inquiry officer has opined that :
In view of aforesaid statement, it has been noticed that Dr. J S Romana conducted ultrasound scan of Rajni twice and according to Dr. Romana both the times he advised Rajni for re-scan but did not advise for MTP but complainant has nowhere said in his statements that Dr. Romana advised re-scan after a week's time. The specialist doctors have reiterated this version in their opinion that in such cases if doctor wants, then he can ask for re-evaluation.
The Inquiry Officer after hearing the parties and recording their statements concluded that :-
“In this case, it seems that Dr. J S Romana, at both times, did not advise the patient or her relatives regarding re-scan after a week because if Dr Romana had advised the re-scan, then patient would have gone for re-scan at first time also. The patient got done re-scan at the second time at her own to confirm the status of pregnancy which was found normal and on 30-12-2016 on the reference of Dr. Anju Garg, again ultersound was got conduct from another centre, which was also found normal. It appears that advising orally for re-scan/ultrasound by Dr. J S Romana after a week does not seems to be reasonable.
Hence, this expert opinion reveals that opposite party did not advise the complainant for re-scan which was necessary because as detailed above, it is clearly mentioned in medical literature that when the mean sac diameter is 16 to 24 mm, the lack of an embryo is suspicious for, though not diagnostic of failed pregnancy. Since the opposite party was expert in this field being Radiologist, it was his duty to advise the patient for re-scan but he acted in a negligent manner due to which complainant suffered a lot. It has also been mentioned in medical literature that a follow up scan/TVS)/serial B HCG evaluation could be done if referring clinician/radiologist/sonologist wants. Thus, plea of the opposite party that it was for the treating doctor to decide re-scan is without any basis. The opposite party is trying to shift the blame on the treating doctor.
Ex. C-2 ultrasound report of the opposite party dated 18-11-2016 reveals that there is a remark Sir, please review for cardiac activity. The opposite party has pleaded that this remark has been given by treating doctor and complainant did not visit opposite party for re-scan/review whereas being expert in this field, opposite party was bound to review/re-scan to confirm cardiac activity of his own.
At the back of document Ex. OP-1/5 it has been specifically written by treating doctor on 17-11-2016 “USG for foetal well being with cardiac activity”. It means that as per opposite party there was no cardiac activity otherwise opposite party would have opined about the same.
The opposite party has pleaded that during scanning, after observing the Image, three measurements were taken to come to the average measurement of the Sac. The scale for measuring the above said three measurements is in built and a part of the software. All the three calculations are done on the basis of inbuilt scale by taking three different orthogonal planes. In this case the average measured as visible to the opposite party and as calculated upon the inbuilt scale of the computer came to be 26 MM. The average had been accurately calculated and mentioned on the report. The report given by the opposite party falls within the para meters as prescribed by the medical norms and the report is in line with the medical guidelines.
Moreover, complainant filed an application dated 28-3-2022 for additional evidence or rebutal evidence to put up the record of previous complaint filed by husband of complainant against opposite party on the same cause of action. It was alleged in this application that opposite party has altered/changed the dimensions of Ultrasound films than those of films previously produced by opposite party in earlier complainant. Opposite party replied to this application and pleaded that he has no objection if the films produced in previous complaint are made part of present complaint. It is further pleaded in reply that in the present case the original film taken on 18-11-2016 shows two of the three measurements to calculate G SAC Diameter. Third measurement of 34.2mm was not displayed on the original film, may be due to some technical problem. To make a more understandable, third measurement was shown while taking print on 21-08-2018 for submission in the case, otherwise there is no difference in original and submitted images. As such the date of taking out the printout finds mention on the report. The date of scanning is 18-11-2016 and patient Id no. 0005 is the same of both films so, average diameter G SAC of 26mm is rightly measured as 30.04 + 12.94 + 34.02 = 78/3 = 26mm. So, its wrong to say there is manipulation in the images on any measurements.
So it becomes clear from the reply of opposite party to the application of complainant that at the time of preparation of report dated 18.11.2016 there were only two measurements of G-Sac, not three measurements and in no way the average of measurements of G-Sac comes to 26mm as mentioned in report dated 18-11-2016 on the basis of which it was opined as a case of failed pregnancy. In this way opposite party failed to prove that how at the time of report dated 18.11.2016 average measurements came to 26mm as at that time only two measurement were there and the average of those two measurements was 21.99mm.
This Commission has observed that films produced in previous complaint which was decided on 19-06-2018 and films produced in this complaint are not in consonance with each other. Perusal of Ex. C-19 i.e. certified copy of Ex. OP-1/2 dated 18-11-2016 of previous complaint reveals that as per these films two measurements of G-SAC Diameter i.e. 31.04mm and 12.94mm are there so the average Diameter of G-SAC comes to 31.04mm +12.94mm = 43.98mm/2 = 21.99mm. Opposite party has also produced the photocopy of report alongwith films as Ex. OP-1/5 dated 18-11-2016 (Page 4) and the measurements shown in Ex. OP-1/5 are not the same as shown in Ex. C-19. By minute perusal of these documents with zoom lens reveals that these documents are not of same dates. Another film produced by opposite party as Ex. OP-1/5 (Page 5) is of another date i.e. half part dated 21-08-2018 and half part dated 18-11-2016. So, it seems that documents Ex. OP-1/5 (page 5) is prepared just to make the measurement in consonance with the measurement written in report in question.
On the basis of first report dated 26-11-2015 of the opposite party, the complainant got aborted her child but there is no admissible evidence on file to falsify this report. So far as the second report dated 18-11-2016 is concerned it is proved on file that this report is false one and negligence of opposite party is writ large. Luckily on receipt of report dated 18-11-2016 complainant did not go for abortion and waited for some time and then got done re-scan which proved report of opposite party as wrong and further life of a child in a womb is saved.
Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Commission is of the considered opinion that there is gross negligence on the part of opposite party in giving wrong ultrasound reports to complainant due to which complainant must have suffered physically, mentally and financially. Although, the loss suffered by complainant cannot be compensated with money, yet in the interest of justice an amount of Rs. 1 Lac in lump-sum on all counts is awarded to complainant.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1 Lac as cost and compensation to complainant.
The compliance of this order be made by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which amount of cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. till realization.
The complaint could not be decided within statutory period due to Covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced:-
14-09-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)
