BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 18/1
SUMITA CHAUDURI
W/O TULSIDAS CHAUDURI
GOBINDAPUR(EAST)
KAILASHAHAR, UNAKOTI TRIPURA
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. AAISHI PATHOLOGICAL LAB,
NEAR SAHA MEDICAL HALL,
HOSPITAL ROAD, KAILASHAHAR,
UNAKOTI TRIPURA
2. TYROCARE,
D-37/1, TTCMIDC, TURBHE,
NAVI MUMBAI-400703.
..….....OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. K. DUTTA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Sri S.N. Choudhury , Advocate
For the OP No.1 : Sri S.Debroy, Advocate.
For the OP No.2 : Heard ex-parte
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :17-01-2018
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : -13-03-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Smt. Sumita Chauduri U/S 12 of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties praying for awarding compensation for physical, mental and financial sufferings on account of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition, is that on 27-11-2017 the complainant visited Dr. Satyajit Paul, Physician for her illness. After examining her the Dr. advised her to do some blood tests for better investigation and also prescribed some medicines. Accordingly, on 28-11-2017 the complainant gave blood sample to Aaishi Pathological Lab, near Saha Medical Hall, Hospital Road, Kailashahar, O.P No.1, for testing and paid Rs.1000/- as advance out of Rs.4550/-. It is further stated in the complaint petition that O.P No.1 informed the complainant that he would do the test by sending blood samples to Thyrocare, D-37/1, Navi Mumbai. On 11-12-2017 the complainant collected the report by paying the balance amount of Rs.3550/- and after examining the report the complainant became worried and immediately consulted her physician Dr. Satyajit Paul, who advised her to go to Agartala for further investigation and better treatment as the blood tests done by O.P No.1 reported serious illness and even life threatening. On 14-12-2017 the complainant moved to Agartala with her friend Papia Malakar and rushed to ILS Hospital. She got herself examined by Dr. Animesh Shil of ILS Hospital by paying Rs.590/- and as per advice of the doctor also did some blood tests on 15-12-2017 at Teresa Diagnostic center, Agartala by paying Rs.2570/- and got the report in the evening on that date and found that the report prepared by Teresa Diagnostic center totally varied from the earlier report done by the O.P No.1 and the physician after examining her declared her to be almost normal as her blood test reports are also normal excepting law range of hemoglobin. Thus, according to the complainant the O.P No.1 has rendered deficiency of service by serving wrong report and as such, prayed for compensation from the opposite parties on account of deficiency of service.
3. In response to the notice OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum and submitted written statement stating inter alia that there is no sufficient investigator/ tester machines with the O.P No.1 and therefore O.P No. 1 sent the blood samples to better investigating center and O.P No. 1 is merely a collection center. O.P No.1 admitted that on 28-11-2017 it took blood samples of the complainant for testing VITDC, FERR,Liver functioning test, KIDPRO, Iron deficiency profile and sent the same to Thyrocare technology Ltd. Navi, Mumbai for testing of the same and thereafter on receipt of the report from Thyrocare it handed over same to the complainant. It is also admitted by the O.P No.1 that it took Rs.4550/- from the complainant and remitted requisite fees to Thyrocare. It is further contended in W.S by the O.P No. 1 that the complainant was well aware that there is no facility for testing the aforesaid samples in the Lab of the O.P No.1 and before collection of blood sample O.P No.1 divulged the fact to the complainant and the blood samples were sent to the Thyrocare on due knowledge and consent of the complainant and as such, O.P No. 1 has no fault and the complainant is not entitled to compensation from the O.P No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
4. Notice was duly served to the O.P No.2. From the record it appears that vide order dated 01-06-2018 the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the O.P No.2 since the O.P No.2 did not appear and submit W.S. Record further speaks that on 10-07-2018 O.P No.2 submitted written statement, but the same was not accepted as the case was already ordered to be proceeded ex parte against the O.P No.2.
5. From the side of the complainant two witnesses were examined, including the complainant and another Papia Malakar. The complainant as P.W-1 echoed the same version as was put down in her complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity the same is not repeated. During her re-examination complainant caused the following documents exhibited:-
(i) Original copy of prescription issued in the name of the complainant by S.Pal dated 27-11-2017 in one sheet- Exbt.1
(ii) Original copy of money receipt issued by Aaishi Pathological Lab , Kailashahar, dated 28-11-2017- Exbt. 2
(iii) Original copy of report of thyrocare, Mumbai dated 01-12-2017 is six sheets.- Exbt 3/1-3/6.
(iv) Original copy of money receitp of ILS Hospitatl Agartala dated 14-12-2017- Exbt.4 (v) Original copy of emergency consultation slip issued in the name of the complainat by Dr. Animesh Shil dated 14-12-2017 of ILS Hospital, Agartala – Exbt. 5,
(vi) Original copy of money receipt of Teresa Diagnostic Center, agartala, dated 15-12-2017- Exbt.6,
(Vii) Report dated 15-12-2017 of SRL Diagnostic center, Agartala, Exbt-7/1 and 7/2.
During cross examination by the O.P No.1 the complainant stated that she is not a medical expert, she is a school teacher and all the tests were done in Thyrocare for the first time.
P.W-2 Smt. Papia Malakar deposed in the same line like P.W-1 and during the treatment of the complaint she accompanied the complainant in Agartala.
In cross the P.W No.2 stated that after 15 days of the receipt of report of Thyrocare they went to Agartala.
From the site of O.P no evidence is led.
6. The only point for determination in this case is to whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties.
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. From the written statement submitted by the O.P No.1 it is found that O.P No. 1 claimed that it is a collection center and after collecting the blood sample it sends the same to better diagnostic center for report. In the case in hand the O.P No.1 after collecting the blood sample of the complainant sent the same to Thyrocare technologies Ltd., OP No.2, for report and after receipt of the report the O.P No. 1 handed over same to the complainant. The complainant also in her complaint petition and evidence stated that O.P No.1 informed her that they would do the tests by sending blood samples to Thyrocare. Thus, it is clear that the complainant was in the knowledge that the tests are to be done by Thyrocare, not by the O.P No.1. Further from the complaint petition and also from the evidence of the complainant it is not clear which blood test were done by Thyrocare and which were done by SRL diagnostic center, Agartala. However, from exbt. 3/1 to 3/6 it is found that eGFR, vitamin D, Bilirubin, SGOT, SGPT, Alkanine phosphate, GGT, Total protein, Serum albumin, Serum Globulin, creatinine, blood urea nitrozen, Uric acid, calcium, iron profile, total blood count were done, but from the report of SRL diagnostic, exbt. 7/1 and 7/2 only blood count test was done by SRL and the blood count report of thyrocare and SRL diagnostic center are similar. No report was given by SRL on test on the complainant for other tests as were done by Thyrocare and as such, it is not possible to say that the test reports of the thyrocare on other tests in regard to the complainant are wrong and the allegation of the complainant that her earlier test report is totally varied from the latter test report has got no base to stand. Moreover, the SRL diagnostic test report was given on 15-12-2017 while the test report was given by the thyrocare on 01-12-2017 and during this period medication of the complainant was going on and if it is assumed that the report range of the complainant of the latter tests is on the lower side than that of the reports of the thyrocare, it may be so because of the continuation of the medication. Therefore, the petition of the complainant is devoid of any merit and it deserves dismissal.
ORDER
8. In the result, the complaint petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs.
9. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P No.1 free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(P. K. DUTTA)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
