Dr. ALM’s Medicolegal Series - Part 7 “Ultrasound Scan is Not 100% Fool Proof”

Abstract The Complainant has filed this Complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”). The Complainant has averred that in the month of April 2015, she came to know that she was pregnant as her last menstrual period (LMP) was on March 16, 2015. She has undergone three USG scans during her antenatal period, including anomaly scan on June 26, 2015, July 07, 2015, October 31, 2015. All scans revealed normal features. The Complainant got herself admitted with the OPs on December 14, 2015, for delivery. On December 15, 2015, she gave birth to a male child, namely, Master Manraj. After the birth of the child, the doctor informed her that the child had cried immediately after the birth so he was normal. On December 19, 2015, the complainant along with the child, was discharged and advised to continue with follow-up treatment. The Complainant, after the lapse of 2–3 months, observed that the child was not taking the proper feed and gradual deterioration of higher functions. On June 21, 2016, the MRI scan revealed that her child was suffering from hydranencephaly, i.e., a type of Cephalic Disorder. Hydranencephaly is a medical condition, in which the Cerebral Hemispheres of the brain are absent to a great degree, and the remaining Cranial Cavity is filled with Cerebrospinal Fluid. The Complainant pleaded that due to negligence of the opposite parties in understanding the 2 nd Level Scan Report, the child was born with the problem of false/imperfect brain tissue. The 2 nd Level Scan conducted by OP No. 3, who was only a MBBS Doctor, who was not qualified to conduct ultrasound scan. Therefore, he failed to give correct report. This act of the Doctor tantamounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service. Had the Complainant known at the time of 2 nd Scan that the fetal brain tissue of the child was not normally developed, she could have opted for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP). The National Commission mentioned “To understand the accuracy of reporting of Ultrasound Scan”, we have perused the medical literature and found that Ultrasound has a high sensitivity of recognizing fetal abnormality involving the brain tissue. It is around 87.5% as reported in the said literature. Meaning thereby Ultrasound Scan is not 100% foolproof. Besides we have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission passed in “Dr. Tarun Kumar Vohra” (supra) wherein it has been observed that the Ultrasound is not a 100% full proof method of diagnosis for all congenital anomalies. It was further opined that a study-sensitivity of routine ultrasound screening of pregnancies in the Eurofighter Database quotes the overall detection rate of congenital anomaly to be 56.2% (In Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Grand Jean et al .; vol 847 issue 1 ultrasound 118-124). Based on above, the Radiologists always mention a “Disclaimer” to this effect after the report of Ultrasound is recorded. “This is only a professional opinion and not the diagnosis. It should be clinically correlated. Not for Medico legal purpose.” Hence the Complaint was dismissed by the National Commission.