IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2388 OF Between: 1. Kayala Trinadha Siva Sankara Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy Aged 45 Yrs, 2. Smt Kayala (Bethireddy) Charishma, W/o. Trinadha Siva Sankarareddv Aged 40 Yrs, Petitioners 1 and 2 are R/o. D No. 1-38, Near Dorala Building, Velagaleru Village, Maruteru Post, Penumantra Mandal, West Godavari District. ...WRIT PETITIONERS/ RESPONDENTS IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 497/2022/ PETITIONERS IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 37/2017 AND 1. Shree Karuna Nursing Home And Scanning Centre, Rep by Dr. P Trimurthy, Tanuku 534 211, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 2. Dr P Trimurthy Sonologist, Sree Karuna Nursing Home and Scanning Centre, Tanuku 534 211, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh appellants in first appeal no. 49^^2^22/ OPPOSITE PARTIES IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 37/2017 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, Call for the more records a relating to judgment passed in First Appeal No. 497/2022 on the file of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission the order passed in Complaint No. 37/2017 at New Delhi reversing on the file of A P StatQ at Vijayawada dated ^ Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission 17.05.2022 and quash the as illegal and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the compensation as directed by the Hon'ble A P State Consumer Disputes Reddressai Commission same at Vijayawada passed in Complaint No. 37/2017 dated 17.05.2022 in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 20?.*^ Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs which is deposited by the respondents 1 and 2 in CC No. 37/2017 on the file Hon'ble A P State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission at Vijayawada passed in Complaint No. 37/2017 pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI YALLABANDI Counsel for the Respondents: —- The Court made the following: ORDER RAMATIRTHA 4 APHC010600212024 Bench Sr.No:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 18 [3483] WRIT PETITION NO: 2388 of 2025 Kayala Trinadha Siva Sankara Reddy and another ...Petitioners Vs. Shree Karuna Nursing Home & Scanning Centre and another ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Yallabandi Ramatirtha Advocate for Respondents CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 19"^ 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.2388of2025 J 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. 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: 2. 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. The complainant's case was that, had the scanning center given 4. 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 rendered by the opposite parties towards the the deficiency of service 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 whereas, WHO recommends an ultrasound scan before 24 weeks detection of foetal anomalies and pregnancy, to estimate the gestational age, improve multiple pregnancies, reduce induction of labor for post-term pregnancy and improve pregnancy experience. The National Commission held that, undisputedly since the a complete image of crowded foetus, or if the 7. complainant had entered the 28th week of pregnancy not visible in the scan, if there was a tucked in, resulting in only one side of the foetus the foetus was foetus arms and legs were being seen on the screen and that the report was 'to the extent visible" and what had been observed during the ultrasound test by itself was conclusive proof of either a there was nothing wrong with that since the diagnosis report was to the extent visualized”, and since examination failsafe test and could not be considered a normal or abnormal foetal condition, therefore report submitted by the respondent Nos.1 & 2. not a the 4 HCJ & RCJ W.P.No.2388of2025 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 congenital anomalies. any major 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 26*^ 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. While it may be true that the TIFFA scan is advised to be conducted between the 18'^ and 22"^^ week of pregnancy, yet perhaps it is not illegal for a scan to be conducted beyond the advised time period. 12. We are not quite convinced with the findings recorded by the 13. 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 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 14. 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 considerthat 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. 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 16. Redressal Commission was correct and requires to be upheld. Be that as it may, we allow this Writ Petition and set aside the 17. 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.2388of 2025 Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Shree Karuna Nursing Home and Scanning Centre, Rep by Dr. P Trimurthy, Tanuku 534 211, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 2. Dr P Trimurthy Sonologist, Sree Karuna Nursing Home and Scanning Centre, Tanuku 534 211, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh 3. One CC to Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.2388 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS