SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

        This  is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to  pay a sum of Rs.1,0,000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant.

The case of the complainant in brief

   The complainant had approached the 2^nd OP’s laboratory on 29/12/2017 for checking his blood group.  At the time of examination of the blood group the  OP received Rs.30/- from the complainant as his examination fee .  On the same day the OP give  the examination result to the complainant and noted the blood group as B negative.  On the basis of the result the complainant was ready to donate  his blood to others.  Then the complainant  was again tested to other  lab the blood group noted as O+(O positive).  Then the complainant tested 2 other places also noted the result as O+ve.  Then the complainant stated that 2^nd Op cheated the complainant and she received the fee also.  So the act of the Ops  the complainant caused much mental agony and hardship.  So thee is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice  on the part of Ops.  Hence the complaint.

   The 1^st Op appeared before the commission and stated  her written version that the name of the person who authorized to conduct the institution is not stated and the case is not maintainable.  Moreover 1^st Op  contended that this  complainant never approached the OP’s institution.  Then the complainant filed IA.No.66/19 for impelading 2^nd OP .  No counter filed by 1^st OP and the petition allowed and 2^nd OP  also impleaded in this case.  The Ops  contended that the  OP’s institution  never checked the blood group of complainant and no certificate issued from their  institution.  Moreover the complainant not produced any doctor’s prescription for checking the blood group  and stated the reason  for checking the blood group.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of Ops.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

       On the  basis of the rival contentions  by  the pleadings the following issues   were framed for  consideration

1.Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties?.

2.Whether the complainant is  entitled for  any relief?

3.Relief and costs.

      The   evidence on merits of the  oral testimony of PW 1 and marked as  Exts.A1 to A3 documents.  On the side of the opposite parties DW1 was examined, no documents marked . 

Issue No1.  

      The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions raised by the OPs in their version. The PW1  was  cross  examined  by  opposite party. The documents   Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the part of complainant and to substantiate his case.  Ext.A1 is the Bio chemistry report issued by the OP dtd.29/12/2017.  In Ext.A1 the report of the complainant , the blood group “B” RH factor negative(-ve).  But the complainant again tested the blood group  on 30/12/2017 before Modern clinical laboratory the blood group noted as O+ve.  So the act of the Ops the complainant caused much mental agony  and hardship.  The Ops contended that there is  no deficiency of service on their part.

   On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evidence the commission hold that the report issued by the Ops in a wrong certificate to the complainant and  the complainant caused much mental agony and hardship.  So the Ops  are liable to  indemnify the claim.  We hold that there is deficiency  of service and unfair trade practice  on the part of Ops.  Hence issue No.1  found in favour of complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3

   As discussed above the certificate issued by  Ops to the complainant’s blood group is a wrong one.  So the complainant caused mental agony and hardship.  The complainant stated that 2^nd OP cheated the complainant and  2^nd Op received the examination fee also.   So the Ops are directly bound to redress the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the Ops are liable to  pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  Thus the issue No.2&3   also answered accordingly.

    In the result  the complaint is allowed in part   directing the opposite parties   to pay   Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant  within  30 days of  receipt  of this order.  Failing which  the  complainant  is  at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 1986.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Exts:

A1- Bio chemistry report

A2-OP card

A3-Modern clinic lab report

Sd/                                                  Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                  MEMBER                                            MEMBER

eva

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT