West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/178/2016

Nabinbaran Hatua - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deep Pathological Laboratory - Opp.Party(s)

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member

and

Sagarika Sarkar, Member

   

Complaint Case No.178/2016

 

Nabinbaran Hatua, S/o-Swadesh Ranjan Hatua, Vill-Samsara, P.O.-Talakhanna,

P.S.-Pingla, District- Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                      ..…….……Complainant.

Vs.

Deep Pathological Laboratory, Prop. Dr. Pradip Pramanik, Vill-Samsara, P.O.-Talakhanna,

                                       P.S.-Pingla, District- Paschim Medinipur

                                                                                                 ………….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

            For the Complainant  :  Mr. Ashim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

            For the O.P.                 :  Mr. Diptendu Ghosh, Advocate.

                                                                    

                                                             Decided on: -13/11/2017                             

                               

ORDER

                         Sagarika Sarkar, Member – This instant case is filed u/s-12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by the complainant Nabinbaran Hatua, S/o-Swadesh Ranjan Hatua alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the above mentioned O.P.

                       Case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant’s four years old daughter felt serious illness and the  complainant consulted  with Dr. Pradip Pramanik at his chamber with an adjacent laboratory  and Dr. Pradip Pramanik advised the complainant to undergo some pathological tests of his daughter. It is  stated in the petition of complainant that the said test was done on 31/10/2015 and the test  reports were  delivered on the same day. Subsequently the complainant consulted with another

                                                                                                                                                                      Contd………..P/2

                                          

                                                                           ( 2 )

Doctor namely Dr. Tushar Kanti  Maiti, who on perusal of the said test report advised the complainant to  undergo the same tests from  another pathological laboratory and as per Dr. Tushar Kanti Maiti’s advise the  complainant examined the blood of his daughter at Trinayan Pathological Laboratory on 04/11/2015 and this time the parameter of some tests varied from previous tests but Dr. T. K. Maiti treated his daughter as per report of the second tests. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that had the doctor prescribed medicines on the basis of the test report of ‘Deep Pathological Laboratory it would have been caused wrong treatment to the minor daughter of the complainant.  According to the complainant delivery of incorrect test report amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.-laboratory and it compels the complainant to file this case. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for direction upon the O.P. to pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest as compensation and harassment cost.

  O.P. has contested this case by filing written version, denying and disputing all the material allegations made against them, stating inter alia, that he is not the owner of the O.P.-laboratory and moreover no expert opinion has been adduced by the complainant ascertaining the report dated 31/10/2015 as incorrect and  further  stated the petition of complaint suffers from  non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly the complainant has prayed for rejection of this case.

Complainant adduced evidence through examination-in-chief and during his evidence some documents are marked as exhibit 1 to 3 respectively. O.P. did not adduce any evidence.

                           Points for  determination

1. Whether  the case is maintainable under it’s present form and prayer ?
2. Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?

                    Decision with reasons

     All points are taken up together for comprehensive discussions and decisions.

    The complainant in his petition of complaint has alleged for unfair trade practice in respect of a pathological test report prepared on 31/10/2015 by the O.P.-laboratory. In his petition of complaint the complainant has stated that as per advice of Dr. Pradip Pramanik, his four year’s old daughter named Dipanita Hatua had  undergone certain pathological tests on 31/10/2015 and the report was delivered on the same day but on  perusal of the said report, Dr. T.K. Maiti opined that the same was incorrect and advised the patient to undergo further pathological tests at another laboratory.

                                                                                                                                                            Contd………..P/3

                                        

                                                                            ( 3 )

Accordingly the patient party did the same at Trinayan Pathological Laboratory on 04/11/2015 and the report varied to  some  extent from previous one. The complainant’s sole allegation is that the report dated 31/10/2015 was prepared by O.P.-laboratory fraudulently by adopting unfair trade practice for which the O.P. is liable to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as to compensation and harassment cost.

Curiously enough the said very report dated  31/10/2015 has not been admitted in evidence and no doctor has been examined in this case to say and to prove that the said report  dated 31/10/2015 was fraudulently prepared. In absence of such opinion and report it cannot be determined that the report on 31/10/2015 is incorrect.  In fact the complainant fails to substantiate his allegations by adducing cogent evidence.

Since the complainant has failed to substantiate his allegation no question of granting relief arises at all.

In the result the complaint case does not succeed.                                                                    

                                 Hence, it is,

                                                          ORDERED

                                   that the consumer complaint case being no. 178/2016 is hereby dismissed without cost.

                Dictated and Corrected by me

                          Sd/- S. Sarkar                             P. K. Singha                               Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                               Member                                    Member                                          President

                                                                                                                                    District Forum

                                                                                                                               Paschim Medinipur