Delhi consumer panel upholds verdict indicting Dr Lal Pathlabs for wrong report

Time of India

21-06-2025

New Delhi: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld a finding on
Dr Lal Pathlabs
being deficient in service and ordering it pay compensation to a patient over a
wrong lab report
.
The state consumer commission's president Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and judicial member Pinki were hearing the lab's appeal against the August 2014 order of a district forum indicting the lab for a wrong test report and ordering Rs 3.5 lakh compensation.
In its order on May 26, the commission said, "When a patient's urea levels are reported at more than ten times the normal range, triggering emergency hospitalisation and profound distress, the laboratory cannot retreat behind semantic arguments about its limited role in the diagnostic chain. Moreover, the appellant's (Lal Pathlabs) attempt to shift blame onto prescribing physicians or the Respondent's medical history holds no ground."
It said if the tests carried out by a laboratory are defective and erroneous, the diagnosis by a doctor will be incorrect, resulting in improper treatment and the "medicines prescribed based on a wrong test report and diagnosis may lead to fatal results for the patient".
"When multiple test reports from different laboratories show consistent results that differ significantly from one laboratory's findings, it creates a strong presumption of deficiency in service by the outlier laboratory," the commission added.
Rejecting the lab's argument that the results were due to a particular drug consumed by the complainant, the commission said, "Even if it is assumed that the respondent (complainant) was taking Spirex tablets, we find it implausible that there could be such astronomical difference in patient's test reports pertaining to creatine and urea."
It also rejected the lab's argument that the complainant did not agree to their request for re-collecting the sample, saying the report depicted the values of various important health indicators to be so high that any person having ordinary prudence would be perturbed by such results.
"The respondent was under no obligation to get the tests redone. He got another test done from 3 labs, viz. Max Health Care, Dr Dangs Laboratory and Super Religare Laboratories Ltd, all of which depicted his parameters to be within the normal range," the commission said.
The medical expenses incurred by the patient, in the panel's opinion, were directly attributable to the lab's erroneous report, which falsely indicated life-threatening conditions and necessitated emergency hospitalisation.
The commission noted the discharge summary from Max Hospital "explicitly" linking the patient's admission there to the "erroneous outside lab report".
"Being misdiagnosed with life-threatening conditions and undergoing unnecessary hospitalisation constitutes severe psychological trauma. The mental agony and physical suffering cannot be understated."
The panel found the direction for compensation "just and reasonable".
"We concur with the district commission's finding that the appellant failed to maintain the standard of reasonable care expected in pathological testing, thus amounting to a deficiency in service," it held.