Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/351/2022

Arshitha Mahesh Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharath Specialty Labs - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay Pinto

27 Jun 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:19.09.2022

  Date of Reservation     :14.06.2023

  Date of Order              :27.06.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                   THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,              :  MEMBER  I 

               

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.351/2022

TUESDAY,THE 27thDAY OF JUNE 2023

                                               

Arshita Mahesh Aggarwal,

Flat No. 7. IGP/ADGP Quarters,

48, Wallajah Road,

Triplicane,

Chennai - 600 005.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

Bharat Speciality Labs,

Rep.by its Managing Director,

No. 197, Peters Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai - 600 014.                                                       .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

Counsel for the Complainant     : M/s. Sanjay Pinto

 

Counsel for Opposite Party        : M/s. S. Sathiyanarayanan

 

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the counsel for Complainant and the counsel for the Opposite Party this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for the mental agony, panic, stress, psychological trauma, inconvenience & loss caused to the Complainant.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that she is an Advocate and graduate from the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. The Opposite Party's promotional material with claims like "Answers For Life" and "Technology That Saves Life", lured her and she had availed its services to undergo lipid profile, hemoglobin and thyroid function tests, particularly, Total T3 (Serum/CLIA). Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) and TSH (Serum/CLIA) on 09.05.2022. The blood samples were collected at her residence vide Lab No. 1022003162, Perm No. 1019578 and she paid the Opposite Party's bill of Rs.950/- on 09.05.2022 vide Receipt No.1022003162.

2.     The Complainant submitted that she was under a basic two-fold legitimate expectation, first, that the Opposite Party would send a skilled and well-trained phlebotomist to collect her blood samples at her residence and secondly, that the results would be accurate, genuine, and diligently verified by experienced professionals, before being sent to her.

3.     The Complainant submitted that literally the very first 'touch point' - the process of taking her blood sample by the Opposite Party staff was shockingly negligent, resulting in excruciating pain and a purple patch on her skin at the blood extraction site, which was the size of a ten-rupee coin and lasted more than two weeks. She had retained photgraphic evidence of the injury caused by the Opposite Party staff. Her father brought the said incident to the notice of the Opposite Party MD through a WhatsApp Message on 11.05.2022 but he did not respond to this serious issue.

4.     The Complainant submitted that the process of extraction of blood samples was just the trailer of something more alarming, in the Bio-Chemistry Report of the Opposite Party dated 09.05.2022, the result of her Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) was shown as 5.6 as against the Opposite Party laboratory's printed reference range of 52 to 127 with the unit of measurement mentioned as nmol/L for both readings. It is pertinent to note that this T4 value of 5.6 was highlighted to indicate an abnormal reading. The said report was supposedly checked and vetted by the signatory "Dr.P.Gunasekaran, MD (Microbiology)" of the Opposite Party. It seems that the Pathologist signed the report in a mechanical manner without application of mind, as the blood test reports of patients are not meant to be randomly certified in a haphazard manner like products churned out of a machine in a factory.

5.     The Complainant further submitted that the said abnormal reading in the Opposite Party's Laboratory Report caused her and her family immense stress, panic, alarm and psychological trauma and could have pushed her to commence medication that would not have been required at all.

6.     The Complainant further submitted that she was constrained to rush to a general physician, who, on seeing the alarming report, suggested a Re-test, recommended that she seek the opinion of an Endocrinologist and informed her that medication and lifestyle modification would be inevitable to address an abnormal T4 level.

7.     The Complainant submitted that after a suggestion by a general physician there seemed to be something amiss in the report, she through her father tried to confirm the test result issued by the Opposite Party on 11.05.2022, which was first ignored. Later, on 12.05.2022, the Opposite Party got an employee to call and orally informed her father that there may be a mistake in the result. Even by the Opposite Party's own admission in Paragraph 9 of its Reply to the Legal Notice, it was after the Complainant expressed concern over the abnormal Thyroid T4 reading its Report dated 09.05.2022, only on 12.05.2022, it orally accepted its error. Thus, for 3 days, she and her family had to undergo stress, tension, panic and mental agony. Further, no written communication through a fresh test result was provided by the Opposite Party at the said point in time, as there is a reason why Laboratory Reports are in writing and not orally conveyed to patients and the same logic should be applied for correction and revision of serious flaws in Reports.

8.     The Complainant further submitted that she repeated the same Thyroid Function Profile tests at an evidently more reliable and credible laboratory on 14.05.2022 and the results were absolutely normal. Unlike the previous blood sample extraction, there was no purple patch at the site on her hand. Hence it is evident that both manner of extracting her blood samples by the Opposite Party Laboratory, followed by its report dated 09.05.2022 were a classic case of gross negligence and deficiency in service, squarely covered under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

9.     The Complainant submitted that she was shocked to see the unconscionable and outrageously insensitive averments of the Opposite Party in its Reply dated 26.06.2022 to her Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022, trivialising the serious error in reporting the Thyroid T4 level and negligence in signing and sending a highlighted abnormal reading to her without due diligence and verification, as a mere "typographical error". As Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, deficiency in service is clearly defined service as a “fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance”.

10.    The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party instead of an iota of remorse, had the audacity to attribute the negligent blood sample extraction on 09.05.2022, resulting the painful purple patch on her arm, as "hematological disorder", such serious medical terms should be used with utmost caution and restraint, based on some substantial finding, rather than a cover up of negligence and deficiency in service. The Opposite Party's Reply caused anguish and trauma to her and her family. It was the potential to push her to further medical tests and consultations. The fact that no such purple patch appeared on her arm during the blood sample extraction by a different laboratory just 5 days later on 14.05.2022, or anytime earlier during numerous blood tests she has undergone till date, disproves the hematological disorder excuse and makes the Opposite Party also liable for an act of "negligence or omission" causing "loss and injury" to the Complainant, covered under Section 2(11)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

11.    The Complainant submitted casual and lackadaisical attitude of the Opposite Party in downplaying serious errors as mere “typographical” mistakes is totally unbecoming of a laboratory whose reports are a matter of life and death for patients. It is unacceptable for the Opposite Party to claim that it orally informed her that there was an error in the Thyroid T4 reading printed in its signed report, as it was only after receipt of the Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022 sent on her behalf, the Opposite Party deigned to sluggishly send a corrected Report dated 01.07.2022 to her father, by Registered Post vide Consignment No.RT268093315IN which was delivered on 02.07.2022, as per postal records. It is evident that for 7 weeks the Opposite Party did not take any corrective steps to alleviate the stress and psychological trauma of the Complainant.

12.    The Complainant submitted that she obtained an Expert Medical Opinion dated 08.09.2022 in the form of a sworn Affidavit from Dr Sai Vishnupriya Vittal, MBBS, DNB(Gen Surg), MRCS(Ed), FRCS(Glasg), MCh(Endo Surg), FICS, FAIS, FAES, who has 22 years of experience as a medical doctor and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery of Madras Medical College, a Consultant Endocrine & Breast Surgeon at Sree Sai Krishna Hospital & Vittals Institute of Endocrine & Laparoscopic Surgery and a Consultant Endocrine Surgeon at Apollo Hospitals Main Greams Road, Chennai. In her Expert Opinion, Dr.Sai Vishnupriya Vittal, inter alia, clearly stated that:"with this very low T4 level, the patient would have severe hypothyroid symptoms. Also based on pituitary thyroid axis control with this low T4 the TSH would have gone high to compensate. But this has not happened here which is quite abnormal..."

"...when there is gross deviation of values from the normal range, it would have been ideal to recheck the values before giving the report to the patient."

"... a patient with severe hypothyroid values, that the report revealed, needs immediate management with other diagnostic tests and thyroxine treatment to prevent further deterioration."

13.    The Complainant submitted that the Opposite Party's tagline is: "Quality Is Our Image." To her chagrin, even the minimum standard of care was not taken in her case. The Opposite Party is in flagrant violation of the standard medical industry practice of verification of test reports, especially in cases of highlighted abnormal readings, before signing and sending them to patients, by falsely representing that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade, the Opposite Party have clearly indulged in an unfair trade practice under Section 2(47)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence the complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:

 

14.    The Opposite Party submitted that they deny all the averments and allegations contained in Complaint, except to the extent specifically admitted hereunder. In the event of not specifically denying the averments or allegations, it may NOT be construed as having admitted to the correctness of any of the averments or allegations.

15.    The Opposite Party submitted that the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant on the basis of Test Report dated 09.05.2022 rendered by them which had "typographical error". The said "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" had also been admitted by them. But, the Complainant herein is trying to tarnish their image and is making an enormous claim by way of this Complaint. Hence, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed as frivolous and reckless.

16.    The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant amidst making vexatious allegation against them with fancy terms, had willfully missed out various vital facts pertaining to the present case. The vital facts of the case are that it is a well-established Medical Scan Centre operating in the State of TamilNadu with 5 branches in Chennai and 1 branch in Tirunelveli. They are in the field of Medical Scans over a period of 2 decades and is one of the most trusted Scan Centres in the city of Chennai. They inter alia renders its service at the door step of its patients. They would collect blood samples of their patients, carry out required tests and would give the report of the test at door step of the patients. They have well experienced lab technicians and blood sample collectors. In fact, Opposite Party had continuously rendered their door step service for Late Mr. M. Karunanidhi, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu for collection of blood samples, carrying out required medical tests among various other services. One Mr. G. Sasi Prakash - Medical Radiography Technician was employed to collect samples from Late Mr. M. Karunanidhi. This fact has been stated only to establish their credibility. They regularly renders its door step services to UPSC Officers and their family members.

17.    The Opposite Party submitted that as such, they had rendered its door step service to father of the Complainant who is an Additional Director General of Police. In fact, it is pertinent to state that the family members of the Complainant herein had been regularly availing the services of the Opposite Party since the year 2014.

18.    The Opposite Party further submitted and listed the history of service rendered by them to the members of the Complainant family other than the Complainant, it had rendered its stupendous services to the family members of the Complainant over the period of years without any complaint whatsoever, which would also establish that there had been no negligence on their part for the services rendered to the members of the Complainant family, when that being so, the Opposite Party was called to collect blood samples for one Mrs.Sashi Prabha Aggarwal - Grandmother of Complainant herein and the Complainant herein to perform few tests.

19.    The Opposite Party further submitted that accordingly, Mr. G. Sasi Prakash (technician) was employed by them to collect blood samples of the Complainant and the said Mrs. Sashi Prabha Aggarwal. The said technician had first collected blood samples of the Complainant herein and had advised the Complainant to compress the point at which the blood sample was collected by giving a piece of cotton. However, the Complainant not heeding to the words of technician, had thrown away the cotton piece and went back to her room. Subsequently, the technician had collected blood samples of the said Mrs. Sashi Prabha Aggarwal and had advised her also to compress the point at which the blood sample was collected by giving a piece of cotton.

20.    The Opposite Party submitted that the blood sample of the complainant was put to 3 tests namely Total T3 (Serum/CLIA), Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) and TSH (Serum/CLIA). As per the Biochemistry Report dated 09.05.2022, the result of Total T4 test was 56. However, it was typed with an "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" as 5.6. The Report dated 09.05.2022 with the said "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" was also sent to the Complainant. Further submitted that the test results for Complainant's Grandmother - Mrs. Sashi Prabha Aggarwal was right and did not have any issues.

21.    The Opposite Party submitted that it was reported that the Complainant had been developing purple patch on the skin. Purple patch on the skin would have been caused due to improper compressing the point at which the blood sample was collected. It is also relevant to point out that the blood sample was collected. It is also relevant to point out that the blood sample of the Complainant’s Grandmother was also collected on the very same day, had not developed any kind of purple patch on the skin. This would go on to establish that only because the Complainant herein had not heeded to the advise of Opposite Party's technician properly and had not compressed the point at which the blood samples were collected, the purple patch might have occurred.

22.    The Opposite Party further submitted that subsequently, the aforesaid "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" in the Medical Report dated 09.05.2022 was brought to their notice. They have also admitted the "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" and had informed that the result was normal.

23.    The Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant had issued a Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022 alleging of medical negligence and a Reply Notice dated 26.06.2022 was issued by them. They have admitted the inadvertent mistake in the Report as "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error". Hence it is apparent that they did not try to conceal anything from the Complainant. As far as the purple patch on the skin is concerned, it was because of the Complainant herself who had not heeded to the advise of the Opposite Party's technician. In furtherance, they have also sent a Corrected Report to the Complainant. Therefore, purple patch on the skin of the Complainant cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party. Hence, the allegation as to Opposite Party's technician was negligent and being deficient in service are wrong.

24.    The Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant herein had concealed this vital information pertaining to the present complaint and had filed the present complaint and the same has been filed only with an intention to tarnish their image and claim an enormous sum as compensation from them. Hence, the present Complaint needs to be construed as frivolous and dismissed in limine.

25.    The Opposite Party further submitted that they have been rendering their service to Complainant's family members since the year 2014. Hence, the Complainant's allegation that she was lured by Opposite Party's promotional material are only to tarnish their image. Hence, they are liable to be rejected.

26.    The Opposite Party further submitted that they have technicians who are skilled, well trained and well experienced and the Technician Mr. G. Sasi Prakash who was employed to collect blood samples of the Complainant has an experience of 25 years. He was employed to collect blood samples of Late Mr. M. Karunanidhi, Former Chief Minister of TamilNadu.

27.    The Opposite Party further submitted that about the error in medical report, it is submitted that the alleged error was only a "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" which had inadvertently crept in the result of Total T4 test as 5.6 instead of 56, which was also admitted by them orally and through their legal notice. A rectified medical report has also been sent to the Opposite Party. Further, there is no evidence filed by the Opposite Party that they have sustained loss or any information is withheld as contemplated u/s. 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

28.    The Opposite Party further submitted that that the opinion dated 08.09.2022 was obtained by the Complainant after she was informed by the Opposite Party about the "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error. The opinion in the form of "Sworn Affidavit" at a belated date would only go on to establish that the opinion was obtained by the Complainant only to use it against them in the present complaint. The said opinion deserves to be rejected at its threshold.

29.    The Opposite Party further submitted that it is already admitted by them that the report dated 09.05.2022 has a "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error". It is pertinent to mention that the Opposite Party is a well-established Medical Scan Centre with various branches. Being in the field of Medical Scans over 2 decades, the Opposite Party is a pioneer in the field of Medical Scans and one of the trustworthy scan centres in the city of Chennai. When that being so, only on basis of a report with "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error", the Complainant contends that the Opposite Party has indulged in unfair trade practices as contemplated u/s. 2(47)(i)(b) of the Act, 2019 and such a contention is devoid of any merit and is only to tarnish their image and is vehemently denied.

30.    The Opposite Party further submitted that losses as alleged to be incurred by the Complainant is vastly exaggerated and the Complainant is not entitled for the same.

31.    The Opposite Party submitted and pleaded to construe the discrepancy in the Report dated 09.05.2022 as "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" as it had not led to any disastrous result. The facts of the case would also establish that the Complainant had underwent any successive treatment.

32.    The Opposite Party further submitted that this Hon'ble Commission should protect the Opposite Party and construe the error in the Report dated 09.05.2022 as a "inadvertent/bonafide error" and construe the present complaint as a complaint arising out of compensation culture.

33.    The Opposite Party further submitted that the present Complaint is nothing but a legal action taken by the Complainant with malafide intention to tarnish their image and gain enormous amount as compensation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A16. The Opposite Party had submitted his proof affidavit. On the side of Opposite Party documents were marked as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-10. Written argument of Complainant and Opposite Party filed.

V. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

34.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had availed door step service of the Opposite Party for collection of blood sample to undergo lipid profile, hemoglobin and thyroid function tests, particularly, Total T3 (Serum/CLIA), Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) and TSH (Serum/CLIA) on 09.05.2022. It is also not in dispute that the blood sample of the Complainant was collected at Complainant’s residence on 09.05.2022 by the Opposite Party’s technician. And it is also not in dispute that bill amount of Rs.950/- paid by the Complainant on 09.05.2022 vide Receipt No.1022003162 issued by the Opposite Party.

35.    The facts disputed by the Complainant are that she had developed purple patch on her skin at the blood extraction site, which was the size of a ten-rupee coin and lasted more than two weeks, when her father brought the said incident to the notice of the Opposite Party MD through a WhatsApp Message on 11.05.2022 but the same was not responded. Further in the Bio-Chemistry Report of the Opposite Party dated 09.05.2022, the result of the Complainant’s Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) was shown as 5.6 as against the Opposite Party laboratory's printed reference range of 52 to 127 with the unit of measurement mentioned as nmol/L for both readings and the T4 value of 5.6 was highlighted to indicate an abnormal reading, which resulted in immense stress, panic, alarm and psychological trauma to her and her family-members and could have pushed to commence medication that would not have required at all.

36.    The contentions of the Complainant are that the Opposite Party would have send a skilled and well-trained phlebotomist to collect her blood samples at her residence and that the results would be accurate, genuine, and diligently verified by experienced professionals, before being sent to her.

37.    Further contended that she was constrained to rush to a General Physician and on seeing the alarming report, he suggested a Re-test and also recommended to seek opinion of an Endocrinologist and informed her that medication and lifestyle modification would be inevitable to address an abnormal T4 level.

38.    Further contended that she suspecting something amiss in the report, through her father tried to confirm, via WhatsApp, the test result issued by the Opposite Party on 11.05.2022, which was first ignored. Later, on 12.05.2022, the Opposite Party got an employee to call and orally informed her father that there may be a mistake in the result.

39.    Further contended that she repeated the same Thyroid Function Profile tests at an evidently more reliable and credible laboratory on 14.05.2022 and the results were absolutely normal. Thereafter she had sent a Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022 to the Opposite Party and a reply notice dated 26.06.2022 sent by the Opposite Party, the response from the Laboratory was insensitive, negligent, evasive, dismissive, shocking and added insult to injury, as the Opposite Party trivialised and downplayed its gross negligence of sending an unverified Report with the reading of Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) as against the normal range of 56 to 127 as a mere "typographical error" and the purple patch at the site of blood extraction as a "hematological disorder".

40.    Further contended that only after receipt of the Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022, the Opposite Party deigned to sluggishly sent a corrected Report dated 01.07.2022 to her father, by Registered Post vide Consignment No.RT268093315IN which was delivered on 02.07.2022, as per postal records and the said Revised Lab Report was sent 7 weeks after its negligent report.

41.    Further contended that she obtained an Expert Medical Opinion dated 08.09.2022 in the form of a sworn Affidavit from Dr Sai Vishnupriya Vittal, MBBS, DNB(Gen Surg), MRCS(Ed), FRCS(Glasg), MCh(Endo Surg), FICS, FAIS, FAES, who has 22 years of experience as a medical doctor and is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery of Madras Medical College, a Consultant Endocrine & Breast Surgeon at Sree Sai Krishna Hospital & Vittals Institute of Endocrine & Laparoscopic Surgery and a Consultant Endocrine Surgeon at Apollo Hospitals Main Greams Road, Chennai. In her Expert Opinion, Dr.Sai Vishnupriya Vittal, inter alia, clearly stated that:"with this very low T4 level, the patient would have severe hypothyroid symptoms. Also based on pituitary thyroid axis control with this low T4 the TSH would have gone high to compensate. But this has not happened here which is quite abnormal..."

"...when there is gross deviation of values from the normal range, it would have been ideal to recheck the values before giving the report to the patient."

"... a patient with severe hypothyroid values, that the report revealed, needs immediate management with other diagnostic tests and thyroxine treatment to prevent further deterioration."

42.    Further contended that it is an admitted fact in both the Reply to the Legal Notice and through a belated Revised Report that the Opposite Party had negligently issued a Blood Report showing the Complainant's Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) as 5.6 as against the printed reference range of 52 to 127 nmol/L. When T4 value of 5.6 was not just abnormal but also alarming. It was highlighted to indicate an 'out of range’ reading, hence the report should have been verified and cross-checked before sending it out to the Complainant. Further, the said report ought to have been checked and vetted by the signatory "Dr.P.Gunasekaran, MD (Microbiology)" Evidently, the Pathologist signed the report in a mechanical manner without application of mind, as the blood test reports of patients are not meant to be randomly certified in a haphazard manner like products churned out of a machine in a factory. Further, the Opposite Party's own admission in Paragraph 9 of its Reply to the Legal Notice, it was only after the Complainant expressed concern over the abnormal Thyroid T4 reading its Report dated 09.05.2022, the error committed by the Opposite Party was accepted orally only on 12.05.2022. Hence it would be evident that for 3 days, the Complainant and her family had to undergo stress, tension, panic and mental agony.

43.    Further contended that the Complainant repeated the same Thyroid Function Profile tests at an evidently more reliable and credible laboratory on 14.05.2022 and the results were absolutely normal, which further proves the negligence by the Opposite Party.

44.    Further contended that no written communication through a fresh test result was provided by the Opposite Party within a reasonable period of the abnormal and alarming reading being flagged by the Complainant. There is a reason why Laboratory Reports are in writing and not orally conveyed to patients. The same logic should apply to correction and revision of serious flaws in Reports.

45.    Further contended that the Opposite Party instead of being apologetic and taking steps to make amends, had aggravated the Complainant's mental agony by downplaying and trivialising the serious negligence in reporting the Thyroid T4 level and negligence in signing and sending a highlighted abnormal reading to the Complainant without due diligence and verification, as a mere "typographical error" in its Reply Notice dated 26.06.2022. The casual and lackadaisical attitude of the Opposite Party is totally unbecoming of a laboratory whose reports are a matter of life and death for patients. The Complainant availed the medical diagnostic services of a laboratory and did not seek a rough print-out from a job typist! It also misquotes a judgement.

46.    Further contended that the Opposite Party, as a pure tactic to save its skin, sent a Revised & Corrected Report to the Complainant only on 01.07.2022, evidencing for 7 weeks the Opposite Party did not take any corrective steps to alleviate the Complainant's stress and psychological trauma.

47.    Further contended that the Expert Opinion marshalled by the Complainant clearly proves that the conduct of the Opposite Party was not in line with the minimum standard of care expected from a laboratory. And the Complainant ran the risk of starting treatment for a false condition that she did not need in the first place.

48.    Further contended that in addition to provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the misreporting of the Opposite Party was in violation of Clauses 10.3 of the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021 on "precision" and "accuracy" of methods followed as well as Clause 11 on the Release of Test Results. Under Clause 11.8 "all amended reports should be released with an appropriate comment. The laboratory should also record the reason for editing data." Under Clause 11.9” laboratories should maintain a list of tests with critical values. They clinicians on telephone."

49.    Further contended that Section 2(22) (ii) (iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, covers "harm", "personal injury" and Section 2(23) defines "injury" as "any harm" caused to any person in "mind, body". Acts of "negligence or omission" causing "loss and injury" also fall under the ambit of Section 2(11)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. And the Opposite Party had caused harm and injury to the Complainant as at the very first touch point, the process of taking the Complainant's blood sample by the Opposite Party was shockingly negligent and reckless, which resulted in excruciating pain and purple patch on the Complainant's skin at the blood extraction site, which was the size of a ten-rupee coin and lasted more than two weeks. As it was not the first time that the Complainant was giving a blood sample and she is well aware of the procedures involved and took proper precautions after the extraction of blood, by compressing the site with cotton, as instructed, post which, the technician pasted the band-aid and the allegation that the Complainant threw away the cotton and walked away which she vociferously refutes such outrageous allegation and the Opposite Party to cover up its negligence had made such an allegation. Such injury had never occurred before, even when the Complainant underwent a repeat blood test at a more reliable laboratory just 5 days later on 14.05.2022 due to the incorrect result in the Opposite Party's Report, no purple patch appeared at the site on her hand, which would itself prove that the negligence was only by the Opposite Party.

50.    Further contended that the negligent blood sample collection was in violation of Clause 8.2 of the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021, which refers to the personnel being "well trained to follow all the steps" mandated by the SOP. This should have obviously included measures to prevent the purple patch on the Complainant's arm.

51.    Further contended that the Opposite Party's claimed that they did/do sample collection of VVIPS by the technician involved is completely extraneous, as the history of the Opposite Party is of no relevance and only the present facts are to be considered.

52.    Further contended that anyone who "falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or gride", is said to indulge in an 'unfair trade practice' actionable under Section 2(47) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. And the Opposite Party is liable for its unfair trade practice as their tagline is: "Quality Is Our Image", further claims to have "Answers For Life." Even in its Envelopes, it claims to have "Technology That Saves Life", "Image the World Safer, Smarter & Faster" and "Technology For the Changing World." Let alone 'quality', even the minimum standard of care was not taken in the Complainant's case.

53.    Further contended that the Opposite Party is in flagrant violation of the standard medical industry practice of verification of test reports, especially in cases of highlighted abnormal readings, before signing and sending them to patients.

54.    Further contended that when a laboratory indulges in an unfair trade practice by making false claims and not living up to its promises on the basis of which patients avail its services, what is at stake is the health and life of consumers. Such service providers, as opposed to other businesses, must be held to greater accountability as their defects, deficiency in service, harm, injury and unfair trade practices are bound to cause aggravated damage to consumers.

Contentions of the Opposite Party:

55.    The Opposite Party had contended that the present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant on the basis of Test Report dated 09.05.2022 rendered by them which had "typographical error". The said "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" had also been admitted by them. But, the Complainant herein is trying to tarnish their image and is making an enormous claim by way of this Complaint.

56.    Further contended that they are a well-established Medical Scan Centre operating in the State of TamilNadu with 5 branches in Chennai and 1 branch in Tirunelveli, and in the field of Medical Scans over a period of 2 decades and is one of the most trusted Scan Centres in the city of Chennai.

57.    Further contended that they inter alia renders its service at the door step of its patients. They would collect blood samples of their patients, carry out required tests and would give the report of the test at door step of the patients. They have well experienced lab technicians and blood sample collectors.

58.    Further contended that they regularly renders its door step services to UPSC Officers and their family members, as such they have rendered its door step service to father of the Complainant who is an Additional Director General of Police. In fact, it is pertinent to state that the family members of the Complainant herein had been regularly availing the services of the Opposite Party since the year 2014.

59.    Further contended that the history of service rendered by them to the members of the Complainant’s family other than the Complainant, it had rendered its stupendous services to the family members of the Complainant over the period of years without any complaint whatsoever, which would also establish that there had been no negligence on their part for the services rendered to the members of the Complainant family, when that being so, the Opposite Party was called to collect blood samples for one Mrs.Sashi Prabha Aggarwal - Grandmother of Complainant and the Complainant to perform few tests.

60.    Further contended that their technician Mr. G. Sasi Prakash (technician), who has an experience of 25 years, was employed to collect blood samples of the Complainant and the said Mrs. Sashi Prabha Aggarwal. The said technician had first collected blood samples of the Complainant and had advised the Complainant to compress the point at which the blood sample was collected by giving a piece of cotton, which advise was not heeded by the Complainant and had thrown away the cotton piece and went back to her room. Thereafter the technician had collected blood samples of the said Mrs. Sashi Prabha Aggarwal and had advised her also to compress the point at which the blood sample was collected by giving a piece of cotton.

61.    Further contended that the blood sample of the complainant was put to 3 tests namely Total T3 (Serum/CLIA), Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) and TSH (Serum/CLIA). As per the Biochemistry Report dated 09.05.2022, the result of Total T4 test was 56. But, it was typed with an "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" as 5.6 and the said "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" was also sent to the Complainant. Further submitted that the test results for Complainant's Grandmother was right and did not have any issues.

62.    Further contended that it was reported that the Complainant had been developing purple patch on the skin, as the same would have been caused due to improper compressing the point at which the blood sample was collected. And it is relevant that the blood sample of the Complainant’s Grandmother was also collected on the very same day, but she did not developed any kind of purple patch on the skin, which would establish that only because the Complainant herein had not heeded to the advise of Opposite Party's technician properly and had not compressed the point at which the blood samples were collected, the purple patch might have occurred.

63.    Further contended that when the "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" in the Medical Report dated 09.05.2022 was brought to their notice, they have also admitted the "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error" and had informed that the result was normal.

64.    Further contended that in their reply notice dated 26.06.2022 they have admitted the inadvertent mistake in the Report as "inadvertent/bonafide typographical error". Hence it is apparent that they did not try to conceal anything from the Complainant. In furtherance, they have also sent a Corrected Report to the Complainant.

65.    Further contended that they have been rendering their service to Complainant's family members since the year 2014,hence the Complainant's allegation that she was lured by Opposite Party's promotional material are only to tarnish their image.

66.    Further contended that after coming to know about the discrepancy in the medical report of the Complainant, they had admitted the inadvertent/bonafide typographical error and the Complainant had obtained a second opinion and had clarified herself over the inadvertent/bonafide typographical error and it is also not the case of the Complainant that she had underwent further treatment, as she has not subjected to any disastrous treatments due to inadvertent/bonafide typographical error made in the report, hence no injury was sustained by the Complainant. Further the purple patch in the skin had developed as the Complainant had not heeded to advise of their technician in compressing the point at which blood sample was collected, whereas on the same day the blood sample of the Complainant Grandmother was collected, she had not developed any such issue, hence they cannot be attributed to the development of purple patch over the skin of the Complainant and thus no injury was caused to the Complainant.

67.    Further contended that the Complainant had not produced any records to show that she had suffered huge injury due to the “inadvertent/bonafide typographical error” in the medical report issued by them.

68.    Further contended that unless the present Complaint is dismissed, their reputation will be tarnished and they will put to serious loss and enormous hardships, their reputation and goodwill earned over these decades will be shattered, and the present complaint had been filed with  malafide intention to gain enormous amount as compensation.

69.    On discussions made above and on perusal of records, it is clear that the Complainant had availed the service of the Opposite Party for testing Hemoglobin, Thyroid (CLIA) and Lipid Profile, as evident from Ex.A-1 Receipt dated 09.05.2022. Ex.A-2 is the Biochemistry Report dated 09.05.2022 of the Complainant issued by the Opposite Party for the test done, wherein Total T4 (Serum/CLIA) was valued as 5.6 nmol/L and the reference range was shown as 52-127 nmol/L. From Ex.A-4 Prescription dated 10.05.2022 of Dr. Raajiv Dorai, wherein it was observed based on Lab report on seeing T-4 value as 5.6 nmol/L, the Complainant was suggested to repeat Thyroid Profile and for Endocrinologist’s opinion. Ex.A-5 is the WhatsApp message sent on 11th May to Dr.Immanuel, MD of Bharat Speciality Labs, wherein it was mentioned that “Got this report, We have some doubt regarding correctness of this report. Can you pls verify”.  Ex.A-6 is the Hitech Diagnostic Centre Bill dated 14.05.2022 for Thyroid Function Profile taken by the Complainant and Ex.A-7 is the Test report dated 14.05.2022 issued by Hitech Diagnostic Centre, wherein T4 (Total) valued as 6.38 Microgm/dl and the Reference value for Adults mentioned as 4.6 – 12.0mg/dl. Ex.A-8 is the Legal Notice dated 12.06.2022 sent to the Opposite Party on behalf of the Complainant, mentioning about the Purple patch on the Complainant’s skin and about the value mentioned in T4 which caused immense stress, alarm, panic and psychological trauma resulted to rush to a general physician, on seeing the alarming report had referred to endocrinologist and on consultation with another doctor the Complainant was advised to confirm the test report and when contacted the Opposite Party Lab on 11.05.2022, she had received oral communication on 12.05.2022 that there was a mistake in the result and till the date of notice no new report was issued. And mentioned that the extraction of blood sample, followed by report dated 09.05.2022 were gross negligence and deficiency in service and claiming “extra Care Lab” without minimum standard of care attracts Unfair Trade Practice and sought for a written apology from the head of the Opposite Party’s Lab for the deficiency in service, gross negligence and unfair trade practice and for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. Ex.A-11 is the Reply dated 26.06.2022 sent by the Opposite Party to Complainant’s Advocate, wherein the reasons for purple patch on the Complainant skin and reason for value of T4 shown as 5.6 as a typographical error as instead 56 it was mentioned as 5.6 and the same was informed on 12.05.2022 itself, and replied that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Ex.A-12 is the Revised Report dated 01.07.2022 issued by the Opposite Party with Envelope cover addressed to Complainant’s Father. Ex.A-14 is the Expert Medical Opinion dated 05.09.2022 by way of Affidavit of Dr.Sai Vishnupriya Vittal opined about the consequences of the very Low Level of T4 value based on the Thyroid Profile report dated 09.05.2022 issued by the Opposite Party, would have severe hypothyroid symptoms. Also based on pituitary thyroid axis control with this low T4 the TSH would have gone high to compensate. But this has not happened here which is quite abnormal, further opined, when there is gross deviation of values from the normal range, it would have been ideal to recheck the values before giving the report to the patient, and further opined, a patient with severe hypothyroid values, that the report revealed, needs immediate management with other diagnostic tests and thyroxine treatment to prevent further deterioration. Ex.A-15 is the ICMR Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021.

70.    Further, the Complainant contended that in the process of taking her blood sample the Opposite Party staff was shockingly negligent resulted in excruciating pain and a purple patch of a size of ten rupee coin on her arm and lasted for two weeks, which was immediately taken to the knowledge of the Opposite Party via whatsapp on 09.05.2022, Ex.A-5, which was not responded and the Opposite Party in their reply, Ex.A-11 to the legal notice, Ex.A-8, had mentioned that the said patch has happened as the Complainant had not heeded to the advise of the technician in properly compressing the site where the blood samples was extracted and had also mentioned that such change of colour may also happen if there is hematological dis-orders, as such the change in colour is not attributed to any negligence on the part of their technician who extracted the sample.  As the Complainant had taken test earlier and it was not the first time, no such patch had happened and it is highly condemnable to mention that the Complainant would have hematological disorder, as she is well aware of the procedures involved and took precautions after the blood extraction, in fact she had compressed the site with cotton as instructed, thereafter the technician pasted a band-aid on the site. In this regard the Complainant had alleged that the extraction of blood was not done properly which resulted in such patch, inspite of compressing the blood extracted area with cotton and band-aid was pasted in the site. And with regard to the word Hematological dis-order mentioned in Ex.A-11 should not have been taken seriously as the Opposite Party had only mentioned the other reason for such change in colour, as in Ex.A-11 it is mentioned “such change of colour may also happen if there is hematological dis-orders”. Further the Opposite Party to substantiate the qualification and experience of the technician who had extracted and collected blood sample of the Complainant, had marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. The Complainant had alleged the negligent blood sample collection was in violation of Clause 8.2 of the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021, which refers to the personnel being "well trained to follow all the steps" mandated by the SOP, and the same should have obviously included measures to prevent the purple patch on the Complainant's arm, hence it is clear that the process of extraction of blood was done negligently by the Opposite Party’s technician resulted in such purple patch to the Complainant.

71.    The Complainant contended that as it is well settled law whether harm caused to the patient or not would not be a criteria, it is the failure on the part of the Opposite Party to take due care to return a correct finding and had placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory Vs Jagjeet Kaur reported in  IV (2007) CPJ 157 NC, wherein it was held that, "Whether harm came to the patient or not would not be a criteria. It is the failure on the part of the Petitioner to take due care to return a correct finding that is at the heart of the issue." and also placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Anjana Aggarwal Vs Lifeline Laboratory in CC.No.114 of 2013 passed on 21.12.2021 wherein the above mentioned decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was observed and it was held that, “it has been long settled that whether harm came to the patient or not would not be a criteria. It is the failure on the part of the Petitioner to take due care to return a correct finding that is at the heart of the issue”. And also relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in M/s.Future Diagnostic Lab Vs Poorva Ghimire (2022), in a similar case of an incorrect blood report with the defence of a typographical error' had held that, "It is significant to mention here that blood reports are very important as the diagnosis and treatment are often based on it. It is only after understanding the blood reports that the doctor will understand your condition. Had the said incorrect before performing surgery/treatment. reports of blood group and CT/BT been relied upon by the doctor concerned, at the time of conducting surgery, then it may have invited havoc..".

72.    The Opposite Party in support of their contentions had relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh in the case of Karan X-Ray, Sonography, Doppler and C.T. Scan Clinic, Ujjain Yogendra in Appeal No. 910/2016passed on 20.11.2019, wherein it was held that the discrepancy in report as "typographical and bonafide error" is not a deficiency in service and complainant is not entitled to any compensation as it had not resulted in any disastrous result or further treatment by doctor. In the said judgment though it was decided that the negligence found cannot be treated as negligence and it has to be treated as “typographical and bonafide error”, the quantum of compensation awarded was not disturbed by the said State Commission. And also the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Dr. Ganesh Nayak us V. Shammana and Anr (WP No. 21688 of 2009), wherein it was observed that cases of medical negligence are launched recklessly by patients and compensation culture is gaining entry in medical field affecting the relationship of doctor and patient. The Hon'ble Court has also held that medical professionals can also be protected for the bonafide errors in their action like public servants.

73.    On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory Vs Jagjeet Kaur reported in  IV (2007) CPJ 157 NC, followed by Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Anjana Aggarwal Vs Lifeline Laboratory in CC.No.114 of 2013 passed on 21.12.2021, it is clear that the Opposite Party had issued a wrong report on 09.05.2022, Ex.A-2 mentioning the T4 value of the Complainant as 5.6 nmol/L as the Reference Range for Adults for T4 is mentioned as 52-127 nmol/L, and had failed to respond to the Whatsapp message received on 11.05.2022 to verify the correctness of the report issued on 09.05.2022,instead contended that on 12.05.2022 they had orally informed to the Complainant about the mistake that has taken place in the Value mentioned in T4, but no immediate steps was found to be taken by the Opposite Party to send the Revised Report to the Complainant, as only on 01.07.2022 the Revised Report, Ex.12, was generated and sent, that is after about 7 weeks from the date of knowledge of the Opposite Party. Though the Opposite Party had contended that the value mentioned as 5.6 instead 56 is a typographical error, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to verify the report before it is delivered to the Complainant, which the Opposite Party had failed to do so, as any common man on receipt of the report seeing an abnormal result as against the value referred would automatically get panic, stress would surround and certainly put in trauma, as such on reading Ex.A-2 on seeing the abnormal value of T4 would have caused immense stress, panic and psychological trauma to the Complainant. Hence it is clear that the Opposite Party without verifying the report of the Complainant,Ex.A-2 had blindly sent the same, further the Revised/Amended report which was sent on 01.07.2022, Ex.A-12 without following the methods to be adopted as per Clause 11.8 of the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021 on the Release of Test Results, wherein it is mentioned as "all amended reports should be released with an appropriate comment. The laboratory should also record the reason for editing data." Further Under Clause 11.9 it is mentioned as “Laboratories should maintain a list of tests with critical values. They should provide critical (alert) values to clinicians on telephone.", which was also not followed in the instant case, as the value of T4 originally reported as per Ex.A-2 was 5.6 nmol/L, it is clear that the Opposite Party had failed to note the value that has been reported in Ex.A-2 was very low as the Reference Range of T4 mentioned as 52 – 127 nmol/L, which as per above mentioned clause 11.9 the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021, the Opposite Party if would have noted the value of T4 of the Complainant which was found to be very low for open eyes and which is of critical/alert values should have informed over phone or if at all noted would have repeated the test for confirmation of the values of T4 of the Complainant, instead only after the Complainant approaching a General Physician and on his suggestion to repeat the Thyroid test, thereafter the Complainant had requested to confirm the correctness of the test report via whatsapp message on 11.05.2022 and only thereafter the Opposite Party on 12.05.2022 had informed orally that there was a mistake in the report, without taking any immediate steps to issue the revised/amended report, the act of the Opposite Party is a gross negligence as the Opposite Party had delivered the revised/amended report only on 01.07.2022, Ex.A-12, which constrained the Complainant to repeat the Thyroid test for confirmation of the values as found in Ex.A-7, even assuming if the report with typographical error was corrected and delivered immediately to the Complainant on 12.05.2022, the corrected/revised report without appropriate comment for the earlier wrong values of T4 in the report, the Complainant would have been certainly placed for repeating the Thyroid test and even if the Opposite Party would have issued corrected/revised report with appropriate comment on the earlier wrong, the reliability of the report would have been in question and here again the Complainant would have been certainly placed for repeating the Thyroid test. Further Ex.A-14, Expert medical Opinion dated 08.09.2022 clearly explains about the consequences of very low T4 level reported in Ex.A-2 by the Opposite Party. Hence, the contentions of the Opposite Party that the values of T4 mentioned in Ex.A-2 is of Typographical error / bonafide error and that the Complainant had not subjected for any treatment based on Ex.A-2 and thereby no injury or harm caused to the Complainant and not entitled for compensation, are not legally sustainable. Further the Bills issued by the Opposite Party for the Blood tests taken for the Complainant’s father and mother, Exs.B-4 to B-10 since 2014 to 2022 to establish no such issues were taken place, would in any manner cover or support the wrong report issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.   

74.    Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the act of Opposite Party having lethargically processed the blood extraction from the Complainant’s arm, having failed to take due care to give correct report of T4 value of the Complainant on 09.05.2022, having admitted wrong T4 value given as 5.6 nmol/L instead of 56 nmol/L and further having failed to provide an immediate revised/corrected report in writing to the Complainant immediately even after knowing as early on 12.05.2022 that a wrong report was delivered to the Complainant, instead had delivered a revised/corrected report dated 01.07.2022 after about 7 weeks from the date of knowledge of the Opposite Party that too without any appropriate comment as required under Clause 11.8 of the Indian Council Of Medical Research (ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) 2021 on the Release of Test Results, as mentioned above, is of gross negligence and thereby the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

POINTS NO 2 & 3

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost. And hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other  relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony, along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of litigation to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 27th of  June 2023.

 

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER I                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1

09.05.2022

Bharat Scans & Labs Bill

Ex.A2

09.05.2022

Bharat speciality labs Report

Ex.A3

09.05.2022

Photographs of Complainant’s Arm with Purple Patch

Ex.A4

10.05.2022

Prescription of Dr. Raajiv Dorai suggesting Re-Test & Endocrinologist’s option

Ex.A5

11.05.2022

WhatsApp message to Dr.Immanuel, MD of Bharat Speciality Labs Expressing Concern over the Report

Ex.A6

14.05.2022

Hitech Diagnostic Centre Bill

Ex.A7

14.05.2022

Hitech Diagnostic Centre Lab Report

Ex.A8

12.06.2022

Legal Notice to Bharat Speciality Labs

Ex.A9

14.06.2022

Legal Notice proof of Delivery Postal Tracking Sheet

Ex.A10

14.06.2022

Legal Notice Proof of Delivery – Ack Due Card

Ex.A11

26.06.2022

Reply to the Legal Notice

Ex.A12

01.07.2022

Revised Bharat Speciality Labs Report with Envelope

Ex.A13

02.07.2022

Date of Delivery of Revised Report – Postal Tracking Sheet

Ex.A14

08.09.2022

Expert Medical Opinion – Affidavit of Dr.Sai Vishnupriya Vittal

Ex.A15

     

(ICMR) Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices 2021

Ex.A16

27.01.2023

Section 65 B Evidence Act Certificate

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

Ex.B1

 

Diploma Certificate of Technician

Ex.B2

19.09.1998

Conduct Cum Experience Certificate of Technician

Ex.B3

16.01.2004

Conduct cum Experience Certificate of Technician

Ex.B4

26.05.2014

Copy of Bill

Ex.B5

17.06.2015

Copy of Bill

Ex.B6

22.12.2015

Copy of Bill

Ex.B7

23.12.2015

Copy of Bill

Ex.B8

25.10.2016

Copy of Bill

Ex.B9

25.03.2017

Copy of Bill

Ex.B10

09.05.2022

Copy of Bill

 

 

T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                                                                   B.JIJAA

      MEMBER I                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.