Indian Clinical Lab Penalized by Government for Late Report

Late lab reports can be problematic for both clinicians and their patients. As a result, all of the lab professionals that I know place a very high premium on test result rapid reporting. Nevertheless, I was a little shocked to read about the Indian government levying a fine against a clinical lab for a late report (see: Lab fined for late report that led to death). Below is the story with boldface emphasis mine:

The state consumer commission has pulled up a specialty laboratory for inordinate delay in sending a patient’s report to a hospital, as a result of which he died. The lab report for a CMV test — carried out for viral detection — was crucial for the treatment of a 56-year-old patient, who was awaiting a renal transplantation. It took the laboratory 25 days to send the report, by which time the patient died. Now, the commission has asked the lab, Speciality Ranbaxy Limited, to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to the victim’s family....The patient, V K Garg, had been admitted to AIIMS [All India Institute of Medical Sciences] on June 1, 1999 for a renal transplant. As his CMV test reports from two pathological labs gave conflicting results, doctors advised him to go for another CMV test from Speciality Ranbaxy Ltd. Accordingly, his blood sample was sent for testing on June 17, 1999, and the laboratory at Yusuf Sarai market assured to deliver the report on or before July 3. But the lab failed to deliver on the promise — despite a written reminder — Garg’s treatment could not begin and he died on July 13. In fact, the report was only prepared on July 14 and dispatched on July 17, with a remark that the report was delayed owing to a problem in laboratory information system at Specialty Laboratories, Inc, USA. While denying allegations of deficiency in service, the laboratory cited this technical problem for failing to deliver the report on time. It added: "The record showed that doctors at AIIMS continued with the treatment."

Oh, give me a break. Blame a late report on the LIS and particularly one installed in a U.S. reference lab. However, this story gets a little confusing, involving both Specialty Ranbaxy Lab in India and Specialty Laboratories in the U.S. It appears that this latter lab was used to try to break the initial CMV assay tie with a specimen turfed to it from Ranbaxy in India. I must also strongly express my preference for the use of the term pathology lab rather than pathological lab as used in the article above, although the later may sometimes be more apt. What is also interesting about this story is that the patient, V.K. Garg, was tasked with shopping around his own specimen in order to reconcile the conflicting CMV results.