RADIOLOGY

13-61 RADIOLOGY/SONOLOGY. See also Diagnostics; AND PATHOLOGY 13-61.1 Radiologist/Sonologist-Repeat sonography-No negligence- The complainant, a cancer patient was asked by an ENT specialist to get a sonography done, I. 1955 SLT 213, at 217. The principle stated in this case is: "In the realm of diagnosis and treatment ample scope for genuine difference of opinion, and one man clearly is not negligent because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men, nor because he has displayed less skill or knowledge than others would have shown. The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as not doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care". Accordingly he went to the hospital of the opposite party which reported: ' 'u/s examination showed evidence of a low echoic mass measuring around 23x4 mm in size, anterior to the IVC could be an enlarged node". This report made him worried and he left for Cancer Institute at Madras, and a repeat sonography revealed no abnormality. Compensation was sought for giving wrong report. The State Commission held that the report of the Radiologist is only an opinion based on impression recorded by the machine. Sometimes, if the report is not to the satisfaction of the treating doctor, repeat tests are done. In the instant case the report was not even shown to the treating doctor; and patient rushed to Madras. Complaint dismissed. [A.K. Hazarika v. Saraighat X-ray & Clinical Lab. Complaint petition No.122 of 1992, decided on 9.10.93 (Assam SCDRC) (unreported).] 13-61.2 Radiologist-Wrong report of CT scan-Attending doctor should not entirely depend on reports-No negligence- The instant case was an operated case of uterine cancer, where the CT Scan report stated that everything was normal with the patient and there was no trace of cancer, which subsequently turned out be recurrence of cancer, the National Commission while dismissing the appeal against the Radiologist, Dr. Alok Mitra for wrong report of the CT Scan, observed that it is prudent on part of the attending physician to have a careful look at the medical history of the patient before prescribing treatment on the basis of a scan report. Relying totally on the impression of the radiologist in such cases is not correct, particularly when the medical history does create a suspicion of malignancy. [Rahul Sinha & Ors. v. Dr. Ashok Mitra & Ors., 1995 (2) CPJ 227: 1995 (1) CPR 835 (NCDRC).] 13-61 .3 Radiologist-Erroneous report-Ultrasound test of abdomen-Report stating that gall bladder contained multiple echogenic shadows of stones-No stones found on surgery-Negligence held-Plea of disappearance of stones within short span of time, unacceptable-Sum charged for examination to be refunded, with costs-A perusal of the CT scan report of the patient dated 24.5.1996 shows that there was a specific mention that the gall bladder contained multiple echogenic shadows pf stones of P-A shadowing in the neck region. At the same time the specific evidence of PW-1 shows that there was no stone in the Gall Bladder. Though the report of the respondents is dated 24.5.1996 and the operation held on 11.6.1996, yet the contention that those stones might have disappeared during this period, is not at all convincing. It was not reported to be a case of an isolated stone. The report of the respondents shows that the stones were in multiple. PW -1 who conducted the operation has stated that there could be 2% or 3% cases of error. He has also deposed that because there was inflammation of gall bladder the operation was considered better in the interest of the patient. This further signifies that the report of the radiologist that there were multiple echogenic shadows of stones, was wholly erroneous. It is not convincing that multiple stones could disappear from a gall bladder within seventeen days. [Darshan Kaur v. Dr. J.S. Sodhi & Ors., 1999 (1) CPR 522 (Chd.-UTCDRC)]