Haryana

StateCommission

A/659/2017

HARSHIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANAND LABORATORY - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.YADAV

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.659 of 2017

Date of the Institution:17.05.2017

Date of Decision:12.10.2017

 

Harshit minor son of Sh. Yoginder Singh, R/o village Budhpur, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Anand Laboratory, C/o Dr. Ramjas Hospital, Near Railway Station, Rewari through its Incharge/Proprietor.

2.      Dr.Gajender Yadav’s Pathology Laboratory, Garhi Bolni Road, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari.

3.      The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Capital Cinema Building, Vidhan Sabha, Lucknow, U.P.

                                                                             .….Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.J.S.Yadav, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      Harshit (Minor)-complainant is in appeal against the Order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint against M/s Anand Laboratory and Ors. has been dismissed as he failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in service.

2.      In brief, according to complainant Harshit aged 21 days, was admitted in Ramjas Hospital i.e. in the Hospital of opposite party No.1 on 12.08.2009 with the complaint of fever and he was diagnosed as a case of infection. Blood test was advised and after conducting the same, the patient was finally diagnosed as a case of CRP (C-reactive protein). He was  admitted for about six days, but as there was no improvement, another test was advised by the opposite party No.1 on 21.08.2009 from another laboratory of opposite party No.2. Since, the earlier diagnoses stood endorsed, the patient was taken on 27.08.2009 to Sir Padampat Mother and Child Health Institute Jaipur, where the CRP report of the patient was given as negative aggrieved against this, complainant approached the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. One lac for the expenses on the treatment as well as for the harassment suffered by him.

3.      In reply, OPs pleaded that patient Harshit was brought by his attendant on 12.08.2009 as OPD patient with complaint of fever and was advised laboratory examination for complete blood count (CBC) and C-reactive protein (CRP) investigation. After lab reports, the patient was diagnosed  to be suffering from Sepsis. After giving treatment for the same, the neonate was found fine on 21.08.2009 and he was advised repeat CRP test. After reviewing both the reports, CRP was found to be marginally positive as 12mg/1. The prescribed medicines were repeated as period of 14 day had not completed yet. Again on 26.08.2009, the neonate was fine taking feeding adequately without fever. After CRP test was advised which was found to be 22mg/1 (positive). According to the laboratory incharge of the OPs increased CRP has no-relation with the previous disease since there was no fever and the neonate was taking feeding adequately. CRP is an acute phases reactant which can rapidly increase with a minor illness as the CRP is not a disease and it is a test to assist in diagnosing the infection. The learned District Forum agreeing with the stand taken by the OPs dismissed the complaint vide order dated 05.04.2017.

4.      Against the impugned Order dated 05.04.2017, the complainant has filed the present appeal before us reiterating the same submissions before us, as raised by him before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through the record, from the perusal whereof it is evident that apart from the test reports of OP-1 and Sir Padampat Mother and Child Health Institute Jaipur, where the CRP report of the patient was given as negative, there is no other documentary evidence, expert opinion or otherwise to substantiate that the tests reports of the OP No.1 was incorrect. The OP No.1 after their preliminary diagnosis as well as the final one came to the conclusion that the patient was a case of CRP positive. If the second test report obtained from Rajasthan Institute opined differently, then it was the duty of the complainant to produce a third report to support his allegation. It is a matter of common knowledge that the test report from one laboratory does not necessarily agree with the test report from the second laboratory. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence to the contrary, no conclusion regarding deficiency in service or medical negligence against the OP No.1 can be derived. Consequently, we uphold the detailed and well reasoned Order passed by the learned District Forum and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

 

October 12th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.