DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No.479/2018
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
19.12.2018 07.01.2019 14 08.2024
Complainant/s:- | Kaberi Bhowal, W/o. Nabhanil Mondal, Horizon, @ Uniworld City, P.S. New Town, New Town, Kolkata-700156. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | - Bhagirath Neotia Women and Child Care Centre,
Through its Director, 27-0327, Street No.327, a Action Area-ID, New Town, Kolkata- 700156, P.S. New Town. 2. Liliac Insights (P) Limited, Through its Director, 301, 302, Rupa Solitaire Premises, C.S. Limited, Sector-1, Building No.A-1, Millenium Business Park, MIDC, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400710, P.S. Mahape. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
The complainant above named filed this complaint under Section 12 of the C.P.Act against the aforesaid opposite parties praying for direction to refund Rs. 4,490/-and Rs. 16,500/-, compensation amounting to Rs.45,00,000/- cost of the case and other reliefs.
She alleged that she went before the O.P. No.1 for ultrasound test Double Marker Test and paid a sum of Rs. 4,490/- on 07.07.2018. She received the report of USG from the O.P. No.1 on the same day wherein it has been noted ‘Both Nasal Bones are present’. On 08.08.2018 blood sample of the complainant was sent to O.P. No.2 for First Timester Screening Summary. O.P. No.2 issued report on 09.08.2018 wherein it has stated posterior risk factor of down’s syndrome is very high I. E 1.37 where the cut off rate is 1.250, the said report also stated that ‘Both Nasal Bones are absent’.
Complainant immediately consulted with Dr. Sujata Dutta who became anxious to see the Controversary Report. As per her advice NIPT Test was done before MDMC and complainant paid Rs. 16,500/- and from the said report it was found that Both Nasal Bones are present.
O.P. No.1 appeared in this record and filed W.V.
He denied the entire allegations. He further contended that NIPT is just a blood test and which does not reveal any such remark and the observation regarding the presence or absence of nasal bones. Moreover, the husband of the complainant had approached to the O.P.No.1 on 30.08.2018 and stated the aforesaid fact to him. They stated that it is typographical error. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./479/2018
O.P. No.2 is contesting the case by filing a separate W.V. and denied the entire allegation made in the petition of complaint contending interalia that the case is not maintainable, the case is vague and case is barred by law of estoppels, waiver and acquiescence. He further contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part, he prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, W.V of O.P. No.1, W.V of O.P. No.2, affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant, questionnaire filed by the O.p. No.2 and O.P. No.1 and reply submitted by the complainant, affidavit-in- chief filed by the O.P. No.2, questionnaire filed by the complainant and reply filed by the O.P. No.2..
We have heard the Ld. Advocate for both the parties at length.
We have also perused the BNA of complainant and BNA of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.
It is admitted position that complainant appeard before the O.P. No.1 for some tests and O.P.No.1 conducted USG of the complainant and over the said document it has mentioned ‘ Both Nasal Bones are present.
It is also admitted position after taking the blood sample from the complainant O.P. No.1 arranged some tests through O.P. No.2 and as per report of the said tests both nasal bones of the complainant are absent.
It is also admitted position that as per advice of Dr. Sujata Dutta complainant arranged NIPT Test and found both the Nasal Bones are present.
On perusal of report dated 07.08..2018 issued by O.P. No.1 we find that on the said report it has mentioned that both Nasal Bones are present. But on perusal of other reports we find that O.P. No.2 stated in his report that Nasal Bones are absent.
Now the question comes before this commission that O.P. No.1 in the report of USG of complainant stated both Nasal Bones are present. Then how O.P. No.2 can say in his report that both Nasal Bones are absent. Naturally seeing the said report any one can be confused and in the present case complainant and her doctor became confused and complainant was in anxiety for a certain period. Subsequently, complainant as per advice of her doctor arranged NIPT Test and in the said report it was found that Nasal Bones are present.
Contd. To Page No. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./479/2018
Accordingly it is clear before this commission report of O.P. No.2 dated. 8.8.2017, it appears to be not genuine and not reliable and does not contain actual fact.
Investigation report which are done by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 are nothing but scientific report. Those reports are conducted to the scientific method maintaining the guideline issued by competent authority.
In such a situation it is difficult to issue different opinion. If the report issued by O.P. No.1 is considered as a genuine report then report issued by O.P. No.2 dated 08.08.2018 cannot be true at the same time.
Either as per report of O.P. No.1 Nasal Bones of the complainant were present or as per report of O.P. No.2 Nasal Bones of the complainant were found absent.
Presence of particular organ of human body and absence of said organ in the human body cannot be true at a time.
As per subsequent report conducted by another authority it was found that Nasal Bones of the complainant were present. There is no allegation against the said report which done by MEDGENOME stating that said report is not genuine. So, in this situation it can be presumed that O.P. No.2 has nothing to say against the said report or he has no objection against the report issued by MEDGENOME. So question of further investigation by other authority as per order of this commission or Expert Opinion is required.
So, placing reliance upon the report of said MEDGENOME it is clear before us that report dated 08.08.2018 issued by O.P. No.2 is appear to be wrong.
Definitely such type of report may confuse any person like the complainant.
In the present case complainant alleged that seeing the said report she and her minor son, aged parents became anxious and went on a mental pain for a certain period but it is. clear from the report from MEDGENOME. Accordingly we find that the aforesaid act of O.P. No.2 is nothing but deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
On perusal of record we find that complainant is a consumer and opposite parties are the service providers.
Contd. To Page No. 4 . . . ./
: : 4 : :
C.C. No./479/2018
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that complainant has able to established his grievances against the O.P. No.2 and he is entitled to relief as her prayer in part.
In the result, the present case succeeds in part.
Hence,
it is
Ordered,
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.2 and dismissed on contest against O.P. No.1 with cost of Rs. 5,000/-to be paid by O.P. No.2 in favour of the complainant.
O.P. No.2 is directed to pay Rs. 20,990/- in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this day failing which aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 07.08.2018 to till the actual date of payment. Preferably within 45 days from this day failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P.No.2 is further directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/-(Twenty thousand ) in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this day failing which the complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
