1) PATHOLOGY.
1 See also Diagnostics; AND RADIOLOGV/SONOLOGY 13-54.1 Pathological test-Oncology-Leukaemia (blood cancer)-Failure to diagnose and give treatment-Non-production of blood report by complainant- Finding of blood cancer could not be arrived at-No negligence or deficiency in service- The son of the complainant had blood cancer and the opposite party could not treat the disease in a period of 40 days. Ultimately, he was taken to the medical college where the case of blood cancer was diagnosed. According to the counsel for the appellant, family doctor treating the son of the complainant should have got the examination of blood cancer. This blood report has not been filed before the District Forum. Also no copy of the same has been produced before Commission.
The State Commission held that in absence of report it cannot be said that there was any indication that the son of the complainant was suffering from blood cancer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the doctor who was treating the son of the complainant was negligent and deficient in service. [Wahid Khan v. Dr. Mohd. Abdul, 1999 (3) CPJ 304 (UP SCDRC) ]
13-54.2 Pathological test-Wrong report-Obstetrics/Gynaeco1ogy-Ante- natal examination- VDRL Test-Certificate issued indicating test as 'positive' for 'titre 1 :8' which meant either of the spouses was suffering from veneral disease- Report only preliminary, subject to other confirmatory tests not intimated-No damage but compensation of Rs. 50,000 awarded for social trauma- The complain- ant's wife, M was referred to OP for antenatal laboratory examinations, who issued a certificate in respect of VDRL (Veneral Disease Research Laboratory) Test as 'Positive' for 'Titre 1:8' which clearly meant either of the spouses was suffering from V.D., viz., syphilis, etc. In order to confirm this, M was subjected to another test in the laboratory I of another doctor which clearly indicated that so far as the complainant was concerned, I VDRL test was' 'Negative' , and so far as his wife, it was non-specific-biological false , positive. The certificate issued by OP contained no indications to show that the results should be treated as preliminary results subject to confirmatory tests to be performed on both husband and wife. Held: In the Hindu society or even for that purpose other communities, persons suffering from veneral diseases are looked down as persons who are given to debauchery. The first certificate strikes the backbone of the status of the complainant. The subsequent certificates which are corrective in nature are taken by the society are certificates which are maneuvered to retrieve their social reputation. Such stigmatized certificates are not easily forgotten by the society. The society readily believes that either of these spouses is given to extra marital sexual life and this is a serious attack on the reputation of the husband and wife. The medical literature may indicate that these certificates are liable to be confirmed by subsequent tests but Dr. S should have taken adequate care to show in his certificate that the result VDRL test Positive plus Titre 1: 8, should not be taken as a conclusive result, but should be confirmed by subsequent, medical test as required under the medical literature. Therefore, the case of Dr. S that there was no error on his part or that he did not commit any deficiency in service cannot be upheld. On receipt of the certificate both the husband and wife must have suspected the fidelity of each other and in that light there must have been social commotion in their sentiments and on their behalf. Such  social trauma should be adequately compensated by awarding the damages so as to intimate the society that neither of these spouses suffers from any VDRL, disease. Looking to the status of husband and wife, cumulative damages of Rs. 50,000/- should serve the ends of justice. [Chandrasagar D. Rajput v. Dr. Dinesh J. £f Shah, 1999 (1) CPJ 434 (Mah. SCDRC)]

2ND ROUND
13-54.3 Pathological report-No clinical diagnosis nor prescription of treatment-Death of patient suffering from cancer-No negligence- The complainant's wife was suffering from some disease and she was taken for pathological examination to opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 for the first time and thereafter opposite party No.2 did the pathological examination and submitted their report. They had not done clinical diagnosis of the complainant's wife nor they had given any opinion regarding the disease "' which might have been contacted by the complainant's wife. The patient was suffering
from cancer IV. Stage from a very long time and she died. The complainant alleged wrong diagnosis on the part of opposite parties. Held: The pathological examination which was done by opposite party No.2 was in the nature of report which was based on the examination. He has also not advised if anything to the complainant for treatment of his wife. It has not been indicated by any lone of the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 that the complainant's wife is suffering from cancer or any other disease. They merely submitted their report and it was for the surgeon ifwho had performed the operation to see whether there was any cancer present in the body of the complainant's wife. The opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 have nothing to do with this part of diagnosis. Even in ultrasound the cancer if it is less than 2 cms. cannot , be detected, therefore, there was no fault on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in causing the death of the complainant's wife because they have not diagnosed the case. Thus, no case is made out against the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3. [Raj Kumar v. Dr. Ajay Gupta, 2001 (I) CPJ 495 (UP SCDRC)]
13-54.4 Pathological test-Blood report-Reading of bilirubin- Test con- ducted at three different pathological laboratories-Different readings-Case not fit for adjudication by District Forum as it involves examination of expert witnesses and voluminous evidence- The Forum declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the matter of trial of the case. The Forum was of opinion that the resolution of the dispute between the parties involves consideration of voluminous evidence and evidence of experts in the respective fields. The Forum noticed that the first question to be deter- mined was whether the caesarean operation was necessary or not. During hearing it transpires that the baby was born by caesarean operation and there was definite allegation about negligence on the part of the attending physician and pathological laboratories in the matter of treatment of the baby. It is accepted that blood report of the baby was conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories and the results showed different readings of bilirubin. Ultimately, the baby was shifted to NRS Hospital at Calcutta where by the grace of God the disease was properly diagnosed and the baby was cured. The Forum noticed that in order to prove the allegations regarding negligence on the part of the opposite parties, quite a few witnesses were required to be examined and these witnesses include Medical/Gynecological/Pathological experts. The Forum declined to adjudicate the dispute relying on the ratio of decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, reported in AIR 1996 SC 550. The State Commission held that the Forum was perfectly justified in not entertaining the dispute. [Smt. Supriti Modak v. Dr. Gokul Ch. Modak, 2001 (2) CPJ 219 (WE SCDRC)]
13-54.5 Pathological test-Blood test-Wrong report given by laboratory-No treatment started on basis of said report and consulting physician advising to obtain a second report-O Ps refunding blood examination charges and cost of
I litigation, accepted by complainant- Though O Ps giving wrong report, no material available to show any loss or injury to complainant-District Forum not awarding any compensation-No interference called for by State Commission- Upon consideration of materials on records the Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The Forum however, did not award any compensation in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any material to show that he has suffered any loss or injury because of wrong report given by the O. Ps.
There has been a gap of only 9 days in between the two reports. The first report given by the O. Ps. indicated that it was below sub-normal while the second report given by another laboratory showed that it was on the higher side of normal range.
It is true that no third report has been obtained to show which of the reports is correct. Be that as it may the Forum did not find any material to establish the claim for compensation made on behalf of the petitioner. It is accepted that the refund of Rs. 250/- was made by the O. Ps. Similarly, the cost was also paid by the O. Ps. and the petitioner had accepted both the amounts. There is practically no material to show that the petitioner had suffered any injury because of the first report. There was only a time gap of 9 days. The consulting Physician of the complainant did not rely upon the first report, but advised a second report to be obtained. No treatment had been started on the basis of first report. In view of the circumstances, the Forum was perfectly justified in not allowing any claim for compensation and in not awarding higher amount towards cost of this litigation. [Madhyamgram Consumers Welfare Society v. Dr. Kalyan Kumar Chatterjee & Ors., 2002 (2) CPJ 381 (WB SCDRC)]
13-54.6 Pathology-Pregnancy test reported negative-Missed abortion-In a missed abortion urine test for pregnancy may show negative result-Hence no negligence of Pathological laboratory-The Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are running a pathology laboratory which does not require registration of license. They have trained staff and a qualified Doctor who is M.B.B.S. and M.D. in Pathology who used to supervise the laboratory. The complainant was admitted in a Maternity Home wherein the Doctor recorded that she was admitted for Missed Abortion. The doctor advised urine test for pregnancy test and for which the urine was taken to the laboratory at about 11.00 A.M. by husband of complainant. Because it was a case of' 'Missed Abortion', the pathological test of the urine was found to be negative for pregnancy. If early, i.e., first urine is not taken, there are chances of coming negative results. This means that this case was of a Missed Pregnancy in the intervening night of 13.3.1994 and 14.3.1994 and this urine was given for test at about 11.00 A.M. on 14.3.1994, therefore, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has given a wrong report because after missed pregnancy the urine definitely gives a negative result by the test of the urine and generally negative, hence the allegation of the complainant is baseless.
The complainant was admitted in the intervening night of 13.3.1994 and 14.3.1994 at about 1.30 A.M. and she was diagnosed as a case of' 'Missed Abortion' , .In a Medical Book, Text Book of Obstetrics by D.C. Dutta Reprint Edition 1990 in Chapter 15 Haemorrhage in Early Pregnancy at page 179 ' 'Missed Abortion' , is defined as. ' 'When the foetus is dead and retained inside the uterus for more than four weeks, it is called missed abortion". Hence, in the present case, when the complainant No.2 was already diagnosed as a case of "Missed Abortion" then it is baseless to say that due to wrong report direction of medicines changed which resulted in abortion. In fact, it was already a case of missed abortion and might there have been some portion of the foetus remained in the uterus for which Dilation and curettage (D&C) was done, hence, the administration of wrong treatment on the basis of wrong report cannot be attributed for the missed abortion. The opposite party i.e. Mani Pathology Laboratory cannot be held negligent in giving negative report of pregnancy, therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum that due to wrong report, the direction of change in medicines abortion took place and for that complainant is entitled to compensation cannot be agreed with. the complainants are not entitled to any relief as there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. [Rajani Shukla v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, 2003 (1) CLD 347: 2003 (1) CPJ 551: 2003 (2) CPR 238 (MP SCDRC)]
13-54.7 Pathologist-Wrong report-Opposite party pathologist after diagnosis giving report that the complainant having carcinoma of uterus-Relying on said report complainant taken to reputed Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai wherein the uterus removed-But on Histopathological test after surgery cancer not found in the uterus-Said hospital should have conducted further tests before conducting a major surgery like removal of uterus without simply relying on the pathological report-No negligence be attributed to opposite party as while a doctor opines or treats a patient as per established practice, that may be at variance with the opinion and treatment of given by a more experienced doctor- The District Forum has rightly pointed out that a reputed Hospital like Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai would not have solely relied on the report of the respondent and would have got the tests conducted at Mumbai before taking decision for major surgery like removal of uterus. Even the report of Histopathology after the removal of uterus was not proved by leading credible evidence.
The respondent cannot be said to be either careless or negligent in conducting the tests and giving his report. It is well-settled position of law that a doctor while giving his opinion or treatment as per established medical practice could come to a particular opinion which any other more experienced and qualified doctor may not arrive at and there may be difference in opinion regarding the presence of a particular disease such like cancer in the instant case and mere difference in opinion cannot be said to be a ground for fastening liability on the respondent by holding him careless or medically negligent. [Santosh Kaur Sodhi v. Dr. Vijay Mujoo, 2003 (2) CLD 751: 2003 (2) CPJ 344 (Chd.-UTCDRC)]
13-54.8 Pathological test-Blood group- Two tests conducted but different blood groups recorded-Contingency of transfusion of blood-District Forum and State Commission concurrently finding that giving wrong reports amounted to negligence and awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/--Finding not disturbed by National Commission-Both the Fora had come to a case of medical negligence and accordingly compensation of Rs. 5,0001- was ordered to be paid. This matter came up for admission and at that stage itself the arguments of the petitioner were heard and the matter was reserved for orders. Meanwhile, it was brought to notice that the matter has been settled between the parties in the light of District Forum's order dated 20.3.2002. Accordingly, the case is dismissed as withdrawn. [Bharat Pathology Laboratory v. Mangi Lal Vyas, 2003 (3) CPJ 94 (NCDRC)]
13-54.9 Pathological test-Wrong report-Blood coming out with cough of patient-OP-Chief Pathologist stating small cell carcinoma of lung-Patient admitted in another hospital and undergoing operation resulting in removal of left upper lobe of lung-Further pathological tests showing no sign of cancer-Allegation of negligence against OP-Unsustainable where the OP had not given any final report and it was the responsibility of the surgeon who operated the patient to take a final decision before conducting the surgery-No negligence on the part of OP-[Leena Bhattarcharjee v. Nightangle Diagnostic and Eye Care Research Centre (P) Ltd., 2003 (6) CLD 706: 2004 (1) CPR 130 (WB SCDRC)]

13-55 See also Diagnostics; AND RADIOLOGV/SONOLOGY 13-54.1 Pathological test-Oncology-Leukaemia (blood cancer)-Failure to diagnose and give treatment-Non-production of blood report by complainant- Finding of blood cancer could not be arrived at-No negligence or deficiency in service- The son of the complainant had blood cancer and the opposite party could not treat the disease in a period of 40 days. Ultimately, he was taken to the medical college where the case of blood cancer was diagnosed. According to the counsel for the appellant, family doctor treating the son of the complainant should have got the examination of blood cancer. This blood report has not been filed before the District Forum. Also no copy of the same has been produced before Commission.

The State Commission held that in absence of report it cannot be said that there was any indication that the son of the complainant was suffering from blood cancer. Therefore, it cannot be said that the doctor who was treating the son of the complainant was negligent and deficient in service. [Wahid Khan v. Dr. Mohd. Abdul, 1999 (3) CPJ 304 (UP SCDRC) ]

13-54.2Pathological test-Wrong report-Obstetrics/Gynaeco1ogy-Ante- natal examination- VDRL Test-Certificate issued indicating test as 'positive' for 'titre 1 :8' which meant either of the spouses was suffering from veneral disease- Report only preliminary, subject to other confirmatory tests not intimated-No damage but compensation of Rs. 50,000 awarded for social trauma- The complain- ant's wife, M was referred to OP for antenatal laboratory examinations, who issued a certificate in respect of VDRL (Veneral Disease Research Laboratory) Test as 'Positive' for 'Titre 1:8' which clearly meant either of the spouses was suffering from V.D., viz., syphilis, etc. In order to confirm this, M was subjected to another test in the laboratory I of another doctor which clearly indicated that so far as the complainant was concerned, I VDRL test was' 'Negative' , and so far as his wife, it was non-specific-biological false , positive. The certificate issued by OP contained no indications to show that the results should be treated as preliminary results subject to confirmatory tests to be performed on both husband and wife. Held: In the Hindu society or even for that purpose other communities, persons suffering from veneral diseases are looked down as persons who are given to debauchery. The first certificate strikes the backbone of the status of the complainant. The subsequent certificates which are corrective in nature are taken by the society are certificates which are maneuvered to retrieve their social reputation. Such stigmatized certificates are not easily forgotten by the society. The society readily believes that either of these spouses is given to extra marital sexual life and this is a serious attack on the reputation of the husband and wife. The medical literature may indicate that these certificates are liable to be confirmed by subsequent tests but Dr. S should have taken adequate care to show in his certificate that the result VDRL test Positive plus Titre 1: 8, should not be taken as a conclusive result, but should be confirmed by subsequent, medical test as required under the medical literature. Therefore, the case of Dr. S that there was no error on his part or that he did not commit any deficiency in service cannot be upheld. On receipt of the certificate both the husband and wife must have suspected the fidelity of each other and in that light there must have been social commotion in their sentiments and on their behalf. Such  social trauma should be adequately compensated by awarding the damages so as to intimate the society that neither of these spouses suffers from any VDRL, disease. Looking to the status of husband and wife, cumulative damages of Rs. 50,000/- should serve the ends of justice. [Chandrasagar D. Rajput v. Dr. Dinesh J. £f Shah, 1999 (1) CPJ 434 (Mah. SCDRC)]

13-54.3 Pathological report-No clinical diagnosis nor prescription of treatment-Death of patient suffering from cancer-No negligence- The complainant's wife was suffering from some disease and she was taken for pathological examination to opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 for the first time and thereafter opposite party No.2 did the pathological examination and submitted their report. They had not done clinical diagnosis of the complainant's wife nor they had given any opinion regarding the disease "' which might have been contacted by the complainant's wife. The patient was suffering

from cancer IV. Stage from a very long time and she died. The complainant alleged wrong diagnosis on the part of opposite parties. Held: The pathological examination which was done by opposite party No.2 was in the nature of report which was based on the examination. He has also not advised if anything to the complainant for treatment of his wife. It has not been indicated by any lone of the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 that the complainant's wife is suffering from cancer or any other disease. They merely submitted their report and it was for the surgeon if who had performed the operation to see whether there was any cancer present in the body of the complainant's wife. The opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 have nothing to do with this part of diagnosis. Even in ultrasound the cancer if it is less than 2 cms. cannot , be detected, therefore, there was no fault on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in causing the death of the complainant's wife because they have not diagnosed the case. Thus, no case is made out against the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3. [Raj Kumar v. Dr. Ajay Gupta, 2001 (I) CPJ 495 (UP SCDRC)]

13-54.4 Pathological test-Blood report-Reading of bilirubin- Test con- ducted at three different pathological laboratories-Different readings-Case not fit for adjudication by District Forum as it involves examination of expert witnesses and voluminous evidence- The Forum declined to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in the matter of trial of the case. The Forum was of opinion that the resolution of the dispute between the parties involves consideration of voluminous evidence and evidence of experts in the respective fields. The Forum noticed that the first question to be deter- mined was whether the caesarean operation was necessary or not. During hearing it transpires that the baby was born by caesarean operation and there was definite allegation about negligence on the part of the attending physician and pathological laboratories in the matter of treatment of the baby. It is accepted that blood report of the baby was conducted thrice at different pathological laboratories and the results showed different readings of bilirubin. Ultimately, the baby was shifted to NRS Hospital at Calcutta where by the grace of God the disease was properly diagnosed and the baby was cured. The Forum noticed that in order to prove the allegations regarding negligence on the part of the opposite parties, quite a few witnesses were required to be examined and these witnesses include Medical/Gynecological/Pathological experts. The Forum declined to adjudicate the dispute relying on the ratio of decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, reported in AIR 1996 SC 550. The State Commission held that the Forum was perfectly justified in not entertaining the dispute. [Smt. Supriti Modak v. Dr. Gokul Ch. Modak, 2001 (2) CPJ 219 (WE SCDRC)]

13-54.5 Pathological test-Blood test-Wrong report given by laboratory-No treatment started on basis of said report and consulting physician advising to obtain a second report-O Ps refunding blood examination charges and cost of

I litigation, accepted by complainant- Though O Ps giving wrong report, no material available to show any loss or injury to complainant-District Forum not awarding any compensation-No interference called for by State Commission- Upon consideration of materials on records the Forum found that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The Forum however, did not award any compensation in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has failed to produce any material to show that he has suffered any loss or injury because of wrong report given by the O. Ps.

There has been a gap of only 9 days in between the two reports. The first report given by the O. Ps. indicated that it was below sub-normal while the second report given by another laboratory showed that it was on the higher side of normal range.

It is true that no third report has been obtained to show which of the reports is correct. Be that as it may the Forum did not find any material to establish the claim for compensation made on behalf of the petitioner. It is accepted that the refund of Rs. 250/- was made by the O. Ps. Similarly, the cost was also paid by the O. Ps. and the petitioner had accepted both the amounts. There is practically no material to show that the petitioner had suffered any injury because of the first report. There was only a time gap of 9 days. The consulting Physician of the complainant did not rely upon the first report, but advised a second report to be obtained. No treatment had been started on the basis of first report. In view of the circumstances, the Forum was perfectly justified in not allowing any claim for compensation and in not awarding higher amount towards cost of this litigation. [Madhyamgram Consumers Welfare Society v. Dr. Kalyan Kumar Chatterjee & Ors., 2002 (2) CPJ 381 (WB SCDRC)]

13-54.6 Pathology-Pregnancy test reported negative-Missed abortion-In a missed abortion urine test for pregnancy may show negative result-Hence no negligence of Pathological laboratory-The Opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are running a pathology laboratory which does not require registration of license. They have trained staff and a qualified Doctor who is M.B.B.S. and M.D. in Pathology who used to supervise the laboratory. The complainant was admitted in a Maternity Home wherein the Doctor recorded that she was admitted for Missed Abortion. The doctor advised urine test for pregnancy test and for which the urine was taken to the laboratory at about 11.00 A.M. by husband of complainant. Because it was a case of' 'Missed Abortion', the pathological test of the urine was found to be negative for pregnancy. If early, i.e., first urine is not taken, there are chances of coming negative results. This means that this case was of a Missed Pregnancy in the intervening night of 13.3.1994 and 14.3.1994 and this urine was given for test at about 11.00 A.M. on 14.3.1994, therefore, it cannot be said that the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 and 4 has given a wrong report because after missed pregnancy the urine definitely gives a negative result by the test of the urine and generally negative, hence the allegation of the complainant is baseless.

The complainant was admitted in the intervening night of 13.3.1994 and 14.3.1994 at about 1.30 A.M. and she was diagnosed as a case of' 'Missed Abortion' , .In a Medical Book, Text Book of Obstetrics by D.C. Dutta Reprint Edition 1990 in Chapter 15 Haemorrhage in Early Pregnancy at page 179 ' 'Missed Abortion' , is defined as. ' 'When the foetus is dead and retained inside the uterus for more than four weeks, it is called missed abortion". Hence, in the present case, when the complainant No.2 was already diagnosed as a case of "Missed Abortion" then it is baseless to say that due to wrong report direction of medicines changed which resulted in abortion. In fact, it was already a case of missed abortion and might there have been some portion of the foetus remained in the uterus for which Dilation and curettage (D&C) was done, hence, the administration of wrong treatment on the basis of wrong report cannot be attributed for the missed abortion. The opposite party i.e. Mani Pathology Laboratory cannot be held negligent in giving negative report of pregnancy, therefore, the finding recorded by the District Forum that due to wrong report, the direction of change in medicines abortion took place and for that complainant is entitled to compensation cannot be agreed with. the complainants are not entitled to any relief as there is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. [Rajani Shukla v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, 2003 (1) CLD 347: 2003 (1) CPJ 551: 2003 (2) CPR 238 (MP SCDRC)]

13-54.7 Pathologist-Wrong report-Opposite party pathologist after diagnosis giving report that the complainant having carcinoma of uterus-Relying on said report complainant taken to reputed Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai wherein the uterus removed-But on Histopathological test after surgery cancer not found in the uterus-Said hospital should have conducted further tests before conducting a major surgery like removal of uterus without simply relying on the pathological report-No negligence be attributed to opposite party as while a doctor opines or treats a patient as per established practice, that may be at variance with the opinion and treatment of given by a more experienced doctor- The District Forum has rightly pointed out that a reputed Hospital like Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai would not have solely relied on the report of the respondent and would have got the tests conducted at Mumbai before taking decision for major surgery like removal of uterus. Even the report of Histopathology after the removal of uterus was not proved by leading credible evidence.

The respondent cannot be said to be either careless or negligent in conducting the tests and giving his report. It is well-settled position of law that a doctor while giving his opinion or treatment as per established medical practice could come to a particular opinion which any other more experienced and qualified doctor may not arrive at and there may be difference in opinion regarding the presence of a particular disease such like cancer in the instant case and mere difference in opinion cannot be said to be a ground for fastening liability on the respondent by holding him careless or medically negligent. [Santosh Kaur Sodhi v. Dr. Vijay Mujoo, 2003 (2) CLD 751: 2003 (2) CPJ 344 (Chd.-UTCDRC)]

13-54.8 Pathological test-Blood group- Two tests conducted but different blood groups recorded-Contingency of transfusion of blood-District Forum and State Commission concurrently finding that giving wrong reports amounted to negligence and awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/--Finding not disturbed by National Commission-Both the Fora had come to a case of medical negligence and accordingly compensation of Rs. 5,0001- was ordered to be paid. This matter came up for admission and at that stage itself the arguments of the petitioner were heard and the matter was reserved for orders. Meanwhile, it was brought to notice that the matter has been settled between the parties in the light of District Forum's order dated 20.3.2002. Accordingly, the case is dismissed as withdrawn. [Bharat Pathology Laboratory v. Mangi Lal Vyas, 2003 (3) CPJ 94 (NCDRC)]

13-54.9 Pathological test-Wrong report-Blood coming out with cough of patient-OP-Chief Pathologist stating small cell carcinoma of lung-Patient admitted in another hospital and undergoing operation resulting in removal of left upper lobe of lung-Further pathological tests showing no sign of cancer-Allegation of negligence against OP-Unsustainable where the OP had not given any final report and it was the responsibility of the surgeon who operated the patient to take a final decision before conducting the surgery-No negligence on the part of OP-[Leena Bhattarcharjee v. Nightangle Diagnostic and Eye Care Research Centre (P) Ltd., 2003 (6) CLD 706: 2004 (1) CPR 130 (WB SCDRC)]