Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kayala Trinadha Siva Sankara Reddy vs Shree Karuna Nursing Home And Scanning ... on 19 February, 2025
APHC010600212024 Bench Sr.No:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
18
AT AMARAVATI [3483]
WRIT PETITION NO: 2388 of 2025
Kayala Trinadha Siva Sankara Reddy and another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Shree Karuna Nursing Home & Scanning Centre and ...Respondents
another
**********
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Yallabandi Ramatirtha Advocate for Respondents : -
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 19th February, 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:
The petitioners filed a consumer complaint before the Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in which, it was asserted that the complainant No. 2, Smt. Kayala (Betireddy) Charisma, having conceived and in the 6th month of pregnancy, approached a gynaecologist, Dr. V. Sarojini/respondent No. 4 in the complaint for a regular medical checkup. The said Respondent No. 4 referred the complainant No. 2 to undertake a TIFFA scanning test at the scanning center, namely, Sri 2 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025 Karuna Nursing Home and Scanning Center, Tanuku, in West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh, to find out whether there were any congenital deformities in the foetus.
2. The complainant on paying Rs.1200 to the scanning center was subjected to the test and the findings of the test were recorded as under:
"Limbs: The long bones of both upper and lower limbs appear normal to the extent visualized. Normal tone.
Impression: Single viable foetus of about 26+1 weeks of gestation with good foetal well-being till date. Normal utero placental circulation. No sonographically evident major congenital anomalies."
3. The complainant then stated that complainant No.2 gave birth to a male child on 18.04.2016 and, to the utter dismay, the newborn child was born without a complete left arm. It was stated that no precautions could be thus taken by the complainants on account of the gross medical negligence of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and that the child would be put to greater mental agony and mental trauma and hardships throughout life.
4. The complainant's case was that, had the scanning center given a proper report, and the complainant had been referred to a proper, advanced, and efficient scanning center, the complainants would not have been placed in this difficult situation. The complainants thus prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs on account of gross negligence, dereliction of duties, and 3 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025 the deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties towards the complainants as also the child.
5. The complaint was allowed and an amount of Rs.10 lakhs was awarded to the complainants by the State Consumer Commission.
6. The said order was challenged in appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which set aside the order of the State Consumer Commission on the ground that the complainants had approached the opposite party for a TIFFA scan in the 26th week of pregnancy, whereas, WHO recommends an ultrasound scan before 24 weeks to estimate the gestational age, improve detection of foetal anomalies and multiple pregnancies, reduce induction of labor for post-term pregnancy and improve pregnancy experience.
7. The National Commission held that, undisputedly since the complainant had entered the 28th week of pregnancy, a complete image of the foetus was not visible in the scan, if there was a crowded foetus, or if the foetus arms and legs were tucked in, resulting in only one side of the foetus being seen on the screen and that the report was "to the extent visible" and that since the diagnosis report was what had been observed during the examination "to the extent visualized", and since ultrasound test by itself was not a failsafe test and could not be considered a conclusive proof of either a normal or abnormal foetal condition, therefore, there was nothing wrong with the report submitted by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. 4
HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025
8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, the findings recorded by respondent Nos.1 & 2 based upon the scan known as 'TIFFA' i.e., Targeted Imaging for Foetal Anomalies, was totally incorrect. A perusal of the report recorded would show that the sonologist found both the upper and lower limbs to be normal, and even in the report, under the head 'impression', the sonologist did not find any major congenital anomalies. It defies logic as to how such a perverse report could have been recorded, ignoring the major foetal deformity, even when there was no formation of one of the upper limbs. The sonologist proceeded to record that both upper and lower limbs were normal and did not find any major congenital anomalies.
10. One could have understood the meaning of "limbs appearing to be normal to the extent visualized", if the finding was restricted to one of the upper limbs. However, the sonologist was clear that both the upper limbs were normal suggesting that what was seen by the sonologist were both the upper limbs without any difficulty posed on account of the foetus having crossed the particular stage where only one side of the foetus could be seen on the screen.
This defies the explanation rendered by the National Commission that, in the 26th week of pregnancy, since the foetus had grown, there could be crowding of foetus or the legs and arms could be tucked in resulting in only 5 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025 one side of the foetus being seen on the screen. The National Commission, in fact, has added its own logic, which is quite contrary to the clear findings recorded by the sonologist in its report.
11. An attempt had been made by respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the National Commission to somehow suggest that the complainants were advised not to go for the ultrasound test as it was beyond 24 weeks' gestation period. If it were so, then the ultrasound test ought not to have been conducted at all. In any case, there is no medical advisory issued by any statutory or medical health organization, national or international, which mandates that, an ultrasound test ought not to be done beyond the 24 weeks of pregnancy.
12. While it may be true that the TIFFA scan is advised to be conducted between the 18th and 22nd week of pregnancy, yet perhaps it is not illegal for a scan to be conducted beyond the advised time period.
13. We are not quite convinced with the findings recorded by the National Commission. While it is true that every possible abnormality may not be highlighted in such a scan, yet if such an abnormality cannot be detected, then the report in the normal circumstances should reflect it to be so but if the report is such, in the sense that, it records no abnormality which is as perverse as ignoring a missing upper limb, then the report can certainly be said to be prepared in a casual manner and not by expert hands. 6
HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025
14. By submitting an incorrect report, the complainants were prevented from taking an informed decision with regard to the pregnancy. While the complainant No.2 may have been in an advanced stage of pregnancy, yet had she been informed correctly about the abnormal foetal condition, there would have been options before her and the remedies which she could have taken resort to. We are not getting into that aspect at all as to whether at that stage the medical termination of pregnancy was permissible or not, yet nothing could prevent the complainant No.2 to consider that option by taking measures as are provided in law.
15. However, the incorrect report certainly prevented the complainants from preparing themselves mentally to receive a child which would be born physically challenged with a high degree of difficulty in life. Apart from this, the petitioners would have undergone great mental stress and agony and would have suffered a shock on the birth of the child whom they had presumed to be a normal baby.
16. In our opinion, the deficiency in service is writ large on the face of it and therefore the view expressed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was correct and requires to be upheld.
17. Be that as it may, we allow this Writ Petition and set aside the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 30.07.2024, and uphold the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 17.05.2022. No costs. 7
HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025 Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 8 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388 of 2025 73 THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.No.2388 of 2025 (per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ) Dt: 19.02.2025 kbs