Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 173.
Instituted on : 06.03.2012.
Decided on : 27.02.2017.
Mukesh Gupta s/o Sh.(Dr.) Suresh Chand Gupta R/o H.No.395/19 Green Road, Near Soham Mandir, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- City Diagnostic Centre, Rothak through its Director/Owner/Prop. Dr. Surender Sukhija.
- Dr.(Mrs.) Raman Sukhija, Consultant Pathologist, City Diagnostic Centre, Rohtak.
- Insurance Company(to be disclosed by the respondents/opposite parties).
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.
MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. M.K.Munjal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anil Balhara Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that complainant was suffering from Hypertension, post EVIA plus replacement of ascending aorta. It is averred that in the month of September 2010 the complainant was having complaint of bluish discoloration and swelling of both forearm so accordingly he visited the clinic/diagnostic centre of the opposite parties no.1 & 2 and asked for Prothrombin Time which is a test done on Automatic Coagulation autoanalyser(TECO). It is averred that this method of test consists of further three tests i.e. PT, PTI and INR. It is averred that the complainant has got the Prothrombin Time test two times once on 05.09.2010 and secondly on 08.09.2010 and on the basis of report of alleged test, complainant was given medicine at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. It is averred that since the patient was not getting relief during the second week of September 2010 so he rushed to the Medanta Hospital and there fresh test of Prothrombin time and INR etc. was conducted upon the complainant and in the result the INR value of the complainant was found at 17.23 which was very high and the vein of the patient/complainant could have busted any time leading to the death of the complainant. It is averred that the report given by the opposite party no.1 and 2 was absolutely false, fictitious and bogus one and the opposite parties had played with the life of the complainant by giving the wrong repot. It is averred that the complainant has to spent at least Rs.25000/-(approx.) for getting his treatment in Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon. It is averred that due to the above said illegal acts and conducts of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered a great mental shock, pain and harassment. As such it is prayed that the opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund Rs.400/- paid by the complainant for conducting of test, Rs.25000/- spent by the complainant for his treatment, Rs.50000/- as compensation, Rs.50000/- on account of physical and mental harassment and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Hon’ble Forum and has knowingly pleaded wrong facts just to get relief from the Hon’ble Forum. It is averred that no medical negligence was caused in this case. On merits it is submitted that the complainant has not disclosed the fact that he is having the problem since years. It is averred that the PTI, INR can be increased rapidly or decrease in similar manner because it depends on lot of factors like taking of medicines or consumption of food or food supplement which is given in detail in literature attached with the written statement. It is averred that complainant was fully aware about symptoms of the said disease since long and he knows that how range of INR of the complainant can be increased or decreased and due to knowledge, the complainant is playing game with lab owners. This fact is proved from the fact that on near about similar points the complainant has filed another complaint in this Forum against Dr. Narula’s Lab. It is averred that complainant himself is responsible for his condition because when the complainant had already faced similar type of problem when he got test report of INR from Dr. Narula’s Lab and he filed complaint against him, then why he repeated the same thing again after conducting the test from opposite party’s lab. It is averred that there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied. Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
4. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C19 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R11 and has closed his evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant has got his INR tests from the opposite party on dated 05.09.2010 and 08.09.2010 as is proved from the reports Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 respectively. It is also not disputed that as per discharge summary the complainant has also got treatment from the Medanta Hospital on dated 09.09.2010. The contention of the complainant is that due to wrong report of INR given by the opposite parties, the complainant had to taken treatment from the Medanta Hospital and had suffered mental tension, harassment and had to spent more money on his treatment.
7. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per the test reports Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 dated 05.09.2010 and 08.09.2010 the INR of the complainant was 3.07 and 2.58 respectively and as per test report of clinical lab of Medanta Hospital Ex.C5 the INR value is 17.23. But from these reports it is not proved that the reports given by the opposite parties were fake as the complainant has not examined any expert doctor to support his case. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited in 2009(3)CLT 526 titled Nitish Sethi & Ors. Vs. Naresh Trehan & Ors., Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Left Bundle Branch Block(LBBB)-Informed consent obtained-Death of patient aged 37 years-OPs have rendered treatment based on known medical text procedures-The allegations made in the complaint against surgeon not substantiated by any evidence-Mere allegations, apprehension, conjectures and surmises cannot be relied upon unless they are corroborated with evidential value to conclude that there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Ops-There is no deficiency in service/negligence on the part of the Ops.”. Moreover as per the medical text placed on record by the complainant Ex.C19, it is submitted that : “Many medicines and herbal remedies can affect the test result and can also be affected by the severe diarrhea, drinking too much alcohol, getting lot of vitamin K may decrease the INR while getting too little vitamin K may increase the INR. As per text placed on record by the opposite parties Ex.R4 : “The reagents used to perform the PT test vary from one laboratory to another and even within the same laboratory over time, the normal values also will fluctuate. Some substances you consume, illness, change in diet and some medications can alter the PT results”. Hence from the documents placed on record by both the parties it is observed that there are so many factors which can change the PT/INR results and it may vary from one laboratory to another. It is also observed that the complainant had earlier filed a complaint before this Forum in the year 2009 on the same cause of action against some other laboratory i.e. Narula X-Ray Clinic whereby the INR of the complainant on 2.9.2008 was 7.25 and on 3.9.2008 the INR done at Indraprastha Hospital Delhi was found 1.0 but the alleged complaint was dismissed in default on 09.05.2012. But from all these facts, it is clear that the PT/INR results may vary from one laboratory to another.
9 In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the complainant has failed to prove negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
27.02.2017.
................................................
Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President
..........................................
Komal Khanna, Member.
………………………………..
Ved Pal, Member
