The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mistaken diagnosis is not necessarily a negligent diagnosis, and differences in interpretation and methods of examination can impact the accuracy of medical reports.

Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Garg, President—Both the aforesaid appeals are being decided by this common judgment as in both of them common questions of law and facts are involved and they arise out of the same order dated 31.5.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur.

Appeal No. 1673/97

Surana Diagnostic Research Centre v. Smt. Shashi Lapoor

2. This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1986”) has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.5.1997 passed by the learned District Forum, Jaipur-I, Jaipur by which the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 was allowed in the manner that the appellant was directed to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 12,000 (Rs. 2,000 incurred for journey to Bombay, Rs. 2,000 incurred for testing and Rs. 8,000 incurred for stay at Bombay) and Rs. 3,000 as amount of compensation and cost of litigation.

3. The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:

On 14.12.1993, the complainant-respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 1986 before the District Forum, Jaipur City, Jaipur stating inter alia that Dr. P.K. Wanchoo had performed the operation of breast cancer of the complainant respondent on 17.4.1982 and after treatment by radiotherapy and chemotherapy the complainant got rid of the disease and according to the directions of the doctor, she was getting her regular check up after every six months so that if there was any sign of recurrence of cancer, the same may be noticed. It was further stated in the complaint that on 12.5.1993, the complainant-respondent for her regular check up got the Sonography, Chest x-ray and T.L.C. and other blood tests done at the appellant’s Diagnostic Research Centre. It was further stated in the complaint that the appellant gave the report (Ex. 4) of ultra sound sonography on 12.5.1993 in which metastatic lesion of .5x2.80 cm in liver was shown. In the chest X-ray report Ex. 5 given by the appellant, metastatic lesion was reported in lungs and bones and it was also reported that lateral part of third rib was eroded with osteolytic lesion. In this manner, in the reports (Ex. 4 and Ex. 5) of the appellant, development of cancer was shown in lungs, rib and liver and on account of these reports, the complainant-respondent and the husband and other family members of the complainant respondent got serious set back since they regarded it as serious stage of cancer. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter, the complainant-respondent got herself examined by Dr. P.K. Wanchoo, who, looking to the clinical condition of the complainant-respondent, advised the husband of the complainant respondent to get the ultra sound test done in Anil Hospital and for this purpose, Dr. Wanchoo gave a letter Ex. 6. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter, the complainant got the ultra sound test of the liver conducted on 14.5.1993 at Anil Hospital, Jaipur and in the report Ex. 7 of Anil Hospital, no metastatic lesion was shown. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant respondent met with Dr. Surana and told him that according to Dr. Wanchoo, the clinical condition of the complainant respondent was alright and it does not tally with the reports given by the appellant and upon this, Dr. Surana told that the appellant have for most modern machines and the reports given by the appellant were more correct. It was further stated in the complaint that thereafter, because of the psychological fear in the mind of the complainant respondent and her family members, Dr. P.K. Wanchoo referred the complainant to Dr. P.B. Desai, Director, Tata Memorial and Research Centre, Bombay through letter Ex. 9 and along with the complainant respondent, her husband and daughter went to Bombay and the tickets are Ex. 10 and Ex. 11. According to the reports given by Tata Memorial Research Centre, Bombay, there was