Negligence Must Be Proven Through Expert Opinion, Ultrasound Not Conclusive Proof: Uttarakhand State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Doctor

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant gave birth to a child who had serious physical deformities. The child could not sit, stand, or move the lower body due to an underdeveloped spine and sacrum. The complainant had several ultrasound scans done at the doctor's/the opposite party's clinic during pregnancy. All reports said the fetus was normal. After birth, an MRI showed major defects, which doctors said could have been detected during pregnancy. The complainant claimed the doctor failed to detect these issues during the ultrasounds. This caused the complainant emotional, physical, and financial suffering. She filed a complaint for medical negligence and deficiency in service before the District Commission. The District Commission found the doctor negligent and ordered him to pay ₹8,00,000 as compensation, ₹3,50,000 for mental and physical suffering, and ₹10,000 as litigation costs. Aggrieved, the doctor filed an appeal before the State Commission of Uttarakhand.

Contentions of the doctor

The doctor denied all charges. He said he only performed 2D ultrasounds as per instructions from BHEL Hospital, where the complainant was referred. He stated that basic ultrasounds cannot detect spine or sacrum defects. He had no authority to perform advanced scans like 3D or 4D. He also said the complainant was diabetic, and BHEL doctors should have ordered advanced tests. The doctor argued that the child's condition is rare and usually not detected through 2D scans. A medical board found no negligence on his part. Therefore, he claimed the complaint should be dismissed.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the doctor had performed only 2D ultrasounds, as prescribed by the treating doctors at BHEL Hospital. The Commission noted that the doctor was empanelled only to conduct basic fetal well-being scans and was not authorised or instructed to carry out Level II, 3D, 4D ultrasounds, or MRI. It referred to the findings of a medical committee report by the Chief Medical Officer, Haridwar, which stated that the condition was a rare congenital abnormality found in only 1 out of 75,000 to 1,00,000 cases and is difficult to detect through a 2D ultrasound. The report confirmed that the ultrasound was conducted without negligence or malice. The Commission further observed that no expert evidence or doctor's affidavit was submitted by the complainant to prove negligence. It relied on the case Hemlata v. Dr. Vipin Premi, where it was held that ultrasound reports are not conclusive proof and must be supported by further evidence. It also cited Senthil Scan Centre v. Shanthi Sridharan & Anr. and Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, the Supreme Court emphasised that ultrasound is not 100% conclusive and negligence must be proven with expert opinion. Based on these principles and the facts of the case, the State Commission ruled that there was no deficiency in service. It allowed the appeal, set aside the District Commission's order, and dismissed the complaint.

Case Title: Dr. Manoj Singh Vs. Smt. Renu

Case Number: SC/5/A/180/2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Order