Lab fined for misdiagnosing Army doc with HIV

After the treatment, she approached several laboratories for tests which confirmed that she was HIV negative. In her complaint she mentioned that she approached Lal Path Labs for a “final conformity test”.

On August 4, 2003, the doctor was informed by the lab that she was HIV positive. Her husband spoke to a doctor at the lab who confirmed that “the report was final and authentic in all respects”. The doctor then underwent another set of tests and treatment. A court of enquiry regarding her condition was set up and she was placed in “low medical category for prospective HIV infection on September 16, 2003”.

For the next three months, she  had to undergo another spate of tests and treatment. It was only after the second round of treatment that the doctor came to know that she had never been HIV positive. The test was a false positive.

The forum awarded her the compensation on the grounds that the lab had subjected the doctor to a prognostic test instead of a diagnostic test.

A prognostic test is only useful to detect whether an infection is on the rise or not. The forum held that in order to establish whether the woman was HIV positive or not, Lal Path Labs should have performed a diagnostic test.

The defence, on the other hand, claimed that since the woman was a medical professional, she should have been aware of the nature of the test conducted on her.

Considering the doctor’s arguments that she had no specialisation on HIV-related issues, the forum awarded the compensation observing, “In our considered view, a service provider cannot take shelter behind the literacy or illiteracy of the consumer.”

While awarding the compensation, the two-member panel headed by Judge C K Chaturvedi observed, “… The result of imperfection on the part of OP (Opposing Party) to such an extent as in doing a DNA test for HIV virus, has traumatised the life of complainant, her husband and children and temporarily affected her career.”

The forum awarded damages worth Rs 3.5 lakh for “rendering imperfect service, deficiency and keeping in view the turmoil caused to complainant” and a further amount of Rs 50,000 as litigation expenses.