It started with a routine blood test. A woman, recently advised by her physician to undergo screening, walked into a reputed diagnostic centre. The report that came back was alarming—urea and creatinine levels were off the charts, well beyond recognized norms. Her doctor, deeply concerned by the severity of the numbers, flagged her condition as critical. Dialysis was suggested. Hospitalization was advised immediately.
But before going forward, another doctor intervened. A second round of tests was ordered—this time at a multispecialty hospital. The results were normal. Confused and rattled, the patient went further, getting the same tests done at two additional independent laboratories. Both reports reaffirmed what the second doctor had suspected—there was no renal emergency, no elevated danger. Just a glaring mismatch between one report and three others.
By now, the emotional toll had mounted. Air tickets were cancelled, meetings postponed, family members thrown into panic. Legal notice was issued to the original lab. Their reply didn’t concede fault, but insisted on a re-test—preferably at their own facility. The patient declined, citing a complete loss of faith.
A case was filed. The commission reviewed all reports, statements, and arguments. It wasn’t just the numbers—it was their extremity. Urea and creatinine values from the first lab were so drastically different from all other labs that the discrepancy couldn’t be brushed off as mere timing or dehydration.
The original lab argued that vomiting and possible dehydration could skew values. They cited internet medical literature to support the claim. But the timing of the other tests, the absence of intervening treatment, and the repeat confirmations from unrelated labs left little room for doubt.
The commission didn’t buy the theory that medication stoppage or dehydration could normalize results so dramatically within days. Nor did they find merit in the lab’s argument that without fresh samples, no verification was possible. In the face of three consistent reports, their own stood isolated—and indefensible.
Compensation was awarded. The conclusion was clear: while labs may not directly diagnose, the accuracy of their testing is foundational. Doctors make life-altering decisions based on these reports. A major error in values is not just a statistical anomaly—it’s a service failure with real human consequences.
Source : Order pronounced by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 26th May, 2025.