Two investigation reports pointing to same / similar condition, but with different interpretations – Is it negligence?
Irrefutable Facts
A 3-year-old toddler was taken to the doctor with complaints of abdominal pain and vomiting. USG performed by the sonologist at the diagnostic centre revealed a 12.8 mm oedematous appendicular lump.
The doctor immediately referred the child to a paediatric surgeon in another city for a second opinion.
Accordingly, the child was taken to the paediatric surgeon; second USG was performed which reported: ‘Uterine collection with perforation and right iliac fossa bowel mass’. The paediatric surgeon diagnosed the pain due to a uterus infection and successfully treated it with conservative management.
The child’s parents sued the doctor, sonologist and diagnostic centre.
Court’s Observations
The court found that both USGs reported right iliac fossa pathology but the interpretation was different. The court observed that “there was no gross discrepancy in both the reports, but only interpretation differed”. This difference in interpretation was not held as negligence.
The case against doctor, sonologist and diagnostic centre was dismissed.
Prevention Is Better Than Cure
Investigation reports with similar findings may have different interpretations. It may differ from doctor to doctor, and is acceptable to law.
