In a significant ruling on medical accountability, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on Friday upheld a 2014 order directing Dr Lal Pathlabs to pay ₹3.5 lakh in compensation to a patient who was wrongly hospitalised based on an inaccurate diagnostic report.

The dispute stemmed from a pathology report that recorded the complainant’s urea levels as over ten times the normal range, prompting immediate emergency admission. However, follow-up tests conducted by three other reputed laboratories—Max Healthcare, Dr Dangs Laboratory, and Super Religare Laboratories Ltd—revealed all parameters to be within normal limits, contradicting the initial findings.

The District Consumer Forum, in its 2014 ruling, had found Dr Lal Pathlabs deficient in service and awarded the patient ₹3.5 lakh for the physical and psychological trauma suffered. The lab challenged this decision before the State Commission.

In its appeal, the lab argued that the results could have been affected by the complainant’s alleged use of Spirex tablets and claimed that the complainant had refused to provide a second sample for verification. It also tried to shift the blame onto the treating doctors and the complainant’s medical history.

Rejecting all these defences, the State Commission—comprising President Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki—made it clear that the lab could not avoid responsibility by minimising its role. “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,” the Commission said.

The panel also dismissed the argument regarding Spirex consumption, terming it implausible that such extreme variations in urea and creatinine levels could result from the drug. It further held that the complainant was under no obligation to repeat the tests, given how alarming the original report was.

Relying on corroborating reports from three independent labs and the Max Hospital discharge summary that directly linked the hospitalisation to the erroneous report, the Commission said the misdiagnosis led to both physical and psychological suffering that could not be overlooked.

Affirming the District Forum’s findings, the Commission concluded: “The appellant failed to maintain the standard of reasonable care expected in pathological testing, thus amounting to a deficiency in service.”

It upheld the compensation as “just and reasonable” and dismissed the appeal, holding the lab accountable for the distress and unnecessary medical intervention caused by its faulty report.