When a cardiologist marks a test as urgent, can a lab cite a “technical glitch” and stop there? Is refund enough when time-sensitive diagnosis is at stake?
This case examines accountability when delay meets documented urgency.
Irrefutable Facts
The patient, born with congenital heart disease, was initially under the care of the gynecologist. Subsequently, the infant was referred to a pediatric cardiologist for further management.
The pediatric cardiologist suspected Pompe disease and advised “Alpha Glucosidose Level.” Infant’s blood sample was sent to the laboratory; but the laboratory could not issue the report within stipulated time frame. After that, her condition deteriorated, leading to admission to the NICU, but she died after a few days.
Her parents sued the lab, alleging that it delayed issuing the report, which led to delayed treatment and the death of their child.
Laboratory’s Plea
It was stated in defence by the laboratory that a technical glitch beyond their control prevented them from testing the patient’s blood sample. They informed the parents about this issue and offered a full refund.
It was further stated that the patient’s death was likely due to an underlying congenital heart disease rather than the lack of an investigation report.
It was also pointed out that the pediatric cardiologist had not disclosed that the infant had a congenital heart disease.
Court’s Observations
The court on perusal of the medical records observed that the pediatric cardiologist requested for immediate issuance of the report to determine the necessary course of action. Given this urgency, the court dismissed the laboratory’s defence of non-disclosure of the congenital disease as irrelevant. The laboratory should have exercised greater diligence in issuing the reports, observed the court.
The court further observed that the laboratory had been reiterating about the technical glitch for non-issuance of the report. However, no evidence was put before the court to support their contention.
Hence, the laboratory was held negligent.
Prevention Is Better Than Cure
In modern medicine, the diagnosis and future course of treatment depend upon the diagnostic reports. However, technical malfunctions in diagnostic machines are inevitable.
Laboratories should proactively document such occurrences, arrange for maintenance, and redirect pending investigations to alternate laboratories as soon as possible, especially if the referring doctor has indicated any urgency. This fact should also be communicated to the patients.
Source : Bikash Saha v/s Dr. Lal Pathlab & Ors.
Get 7 days online access of this case’s abstract and its complete judgment for INR 250
Subscribe to this Case