The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh has delivered a significant verdict, holding a diagnostic laboratory accountable for negligence after it uploaded an incorrect Covid-19 test result. The commission has directed Atulaya Healthcare to pay Rs 25,000 in compensation and litigation costs to the complainant, Rajni Thareja, for the mental agony and social humiliation she endured.
The Case of the Erroneous Covid Report
The incident dates back to December 13, 2020, when Rajni Thareja, a Panchkula resident who runs educational institutions, underwent an RT-PCR test at the Chandigarh-based lab. She paid Rs 900 for the test and subsequently traveled to Mussoorie after receiving a negative report on December 14, 2020.
However, the situation took a distressing turn on the evening of December 15, 2020. Rajni's husband received multiple alarming calls from the Deputy Commissioner offices of both Chandigarh and Panchkula. The authorities informed him that the same laboratory had reported his wife as Covid-19 positive on the official ICMR portal.
Immediate Repercussions and Social Stigma
The consequences of this clerical error were severe and instantaneous. In Mussoorie, Rajni faced immediate isolation and discrimination. Fellow travelers shunned her, and the hotel management denied her accommodation, all based on the incorrect data entry. She argued that this deficiency in service led to profound mental trauma, public humiliation, and even business loss for her educational institutions, tarnishing her professional and social standing.
Seeking justice for the physical, mental, and financial suffering caused by the laboratory's negligence, Rajni filed a case with the consumer forum, claiming compensation of Rs 19.5 lakh.
The Laboratory's Defense and the Commission's Ruling
In its defense, Atulaya Healthcare admitted that the complainant's actual report was negative and that the positive status uploaded to the ICMR portal was a clerical mistake. The lab claimed it corrected the error immediately by sending an email to the online portal on December 16, 2020, and argued that no significant harm was caused due to this prompt correction.
The consumer commission, however, rejected this defense. It observed that the laboratory failed to produce any proof that a correction was indeed sent to the ICMR. Furthermore, the commission noted that the lab never directly informed the complainant about the error, leaving her to deal with the fallout. The bench firmly stated that the admitted error constituted a clear deficiency in service and caused the complainant "great mental shock, harassment, and ambiguity." It emphasized that during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic, being wrongly labeled as positive carried serious social and psychological repercussions, justifying the compensation awarded.
