That image might be OK in your church, Dcn Lance, but it falls dismally short of proper Orthodox iconographic standards. It may have been painted to resemble an icon, but it ain't an icon.
You'll have to take that up with the Russian Orthodox iconographer who painted it.
As I have said in other threads, being Orthodox in itself does not guarantee canonicity of an image, nor does it confer canonicity on an image which is suspect or heretical. History is full of bearded God the Fathers and winged Angels of Holy Silence (to name but a couple) painted by well-meaning, but misguided Orthodox people. The person who painted this image should have his mistake pointed out. Even if this image was commissioned by a Roman Catholic patron, this is still most problematic for an Orthodox iconographer.
Icons are painted with prayer and fasting. An Orthodox iconographer invoking the immaculate heart of Mary (or praying to a saint or invoking a feast not of the Orthodox Church) is a matter of grave and utmost concern. Icons are not artistic playthings or vehicles of self-expression - they are nothing less than the pictorial proclamation of what Orthodoxy believes and proclaims.
Taking liberties with iconographic portrayals is no less a serious matter than being "innovative" with church hymnography. Remember the justified controversy and seriousness of a Catholic priest who thought it a good idea to baptise in the name of the Creator, Liberator and Sustainer? He didn't do it out of malice or insubordination, but was quite rightly brought to book, and these aberrant baptisms now have to be regularised.
I stand by my earlier comments.