The accuracy of medical tests and the scope of error in handling and procedures can influence the court's decision on compensation for medical malpractice.

Mr. Justice J.B. Garg, President — On a complaint instituted by Mrs. Manpreet Kaur, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Union Territory, Chandigarh, held on 25.11.1997 that there was an error in the finding conveyed by Dr. (Mrs.) A.K. Sawhney, a medical practitioner that the complainant developed pregnancy. The District Forum recorded a warning and it also ordered to pay Rs. 550/- as costs. However, the complainant remained dis-satisfied inasmuch as she had claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. She has attempted the present appeal.

2. There was a delay of about 5 days in the menstruation and Mrs. Manpreet Kaur approached Dr. (Mrs.) A.K. Sawhney, a medical practitioner of Sector 47-D, Chandigarh on 25.9.1992. After charging a sum of Rs. 45/- she opined that the urine test indicated pregnancy. Mrs. Manpreet Kaur remained dissatisfied with this report and she approached Dr. I.M. Lall another private practitioner the next day i.e. 26.9.1992 and after the test he opined that there was no pregnancy. It transpired that the delay in the menstruation was not on account of pregnancy. Mrs. Manpreet Kaur is not satisfied with the District Forum as it recorded only a kind of warning and did not award her compensation on account of the alleged mental suffering which she had for a day. On behalf of the appellant it has been urged that Dr. (Mrs.) A.K. Sawhney wanted that the patient should again meet her on the following day and pay her Rs. 2,000/- for further test and treatment which was uncalled for as her motive was to fleece the appellant.

3. We have perused the complaint, the reply and the affidavits together with the reports. The test for pregnancy may not always be centpercent success. On behalf of the respondent our attention has been drawn to a pamphlet published by Johnson & Johnson of U.S.A. and it contains a short report that a clinical test regarding pregnancy may not be accurate beyond 98%. It indicates that there is a scope of error in handling and the procedure adopted by a technician. The complainant approached the District Forum and besides recording a note of caution which in other words indicates that the medical practitioner should be more careful, a sum of Rs. 550/- has also been awarded as costs. The conclusion is that in the circumstances of the case no interference is called for and the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

–