Udayan VS Imaging Point

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

R.K.AGRAWAL, S.M.KANTIKAR
Udayan – Appellant
Versus
Imaging Point – Respondent

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
Appeared at the time of arguments through video conferencing
For the Complainant No.2:Mrs. Anita Shrouti, In Person with Ms. Vrushali Pradhan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2:Mr. G.N. Shenoy, Advocate
Mr. T.V.S. Raghvendra Sreyas, Advocate (Already deleted OP, vide Order dated 07.11.2019)

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The most common type of litigation involving ultrasound is missing a foetal anomaly. The other causes include the failure to communicate the results of ultrasonic investigation in a timely manner; consequently the main reason for litigation is failure to offer termination of pregnancy as a result of failure to diagnose the defects at early stage.

Facts of this case are of very tragic proportion.

2. On 07.10.2006, Mrs. Anita Shrouti the Complainant No.2 (hereinafter referred to as “the Patient”), during her second pregnancy, consulted Dr. Sarita Bhonsule, Gynecologist and Obstetrician for and was remained under her follow-up for Ante Natal Care (ANC) till delivery. On 08.11.2006 Dr. Sarita Bhonsule for Ultra Sonography (USG) of Pelvis referred the patient to M/s. Imaging Point- the Opposite Party No. 1, the scanning centre. The USG was performed by the Radiologist Dr. Dilip Ghike, (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 2”) and reported it as normal. Thereafter, subsequently the Opposite Party No. 2 performed 2nd USG on 08.01.2007 (17