Medical negligence: Vijaya Diagnostic Centre asked to pay ₹2.21L for endangering life of fetus
How Vijaya Diagnostic Centre endangered life of fetus by incorrect diagnostic report
By Sistla Dakshina Murthy
Representation Image
Hyderabad: Ranga Reddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has come down heavily on Vijaya Diagnostic Centre for issuing an incorrect diagnostic report during a critical prenatal test.
Rs 2.2 lakh compensation ordered
Holding the centre guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, the Commission directed it to refund Rs 1,700 collected from the complainant, pay Rs 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony and financial loss, and an additional Rs 20,000 towards litigation expenses.
Scan report missed a serious abnormality
The complainant, R. Bhargavi, a pregnant woman, had visited her gynaecologist on March 15, 2024, during which a cyst was suspected on the fetus's neck. She was advised to undergo a Nuchal Translucency (NT) scan.
The following day, she underwent the scan at Vijaya Diagnostic Centre, Dilsukhnagar. However, the report stated that everything was normal, mentioning an NT value of 1.8 mm, without indicating any cyst or abnormal growth.
Second opinion reveals critical finding
Doubting the report, Bhargavi underwent another scan two days later at a diagnostic centre in Kothapet. This scan clearly revealed an 11 mm cyst on the left side of the fetus's neck.
Doctors warned that relying on the initial report could have endangered both the mother and the foetus. Based on medical advice, the pregnancy was medically terminated on March 22, 2024.
Complaint filed over mental trauma and financial loss
On July 3, 2024, Bhargavi approached the Consumer Commission, alleging that the negligence of Vijaya Diagnostic Centre caused her severe mental distress and financial loss. The diagnostic centre claimed that no cyst was visible during the NT scan.
Commission holds Diagnostic Centre guilty
After examining all medical records and evidence, the Commission concluded that the failure to detect the cyst during the scan amounted to negligence. It ruled that the diagnostic centre had shown deficiency in service and passed orders accordingly.
