O R D E R

By Smt.Sreeja.S, Member :

          Complainant admitted to hospital on  13/7/14 due to high headache and fever and discharged on 16/9/14.  Doctor advised him that the platelet count in blood should be monitored regularly and the  count falling short of 1,00,000 would  be of fatal consequences.  Hence he done his blood test with the opposite party from 17/7/14 to 23/7/14.  The preliminary test at Aswini hospital showed the count as 1,10,000.  The test conducted at opposite party  from 17^th to 21^st  showed  result of 1,10,000 but the examination on 12^th  showed count as 1,00,000 alone and the same caused  immense fear of death to the complainant.  So he consulted another doctor for which he has to spend a huge sum.  Feeling doubt on the report he tested his blood at  Sudharma lab on 23^rd , which shown a count of 4,79,000.  At noon, on the day he approached the opposite party to examine his platelet count and the result showed the count as 1,10,000 alone.  So he got admitted in Aswini hospital due to variation in results and thereafter blood test therein shown the platelet count as 4,89,000.   Hence it has revealed that the test conducted by opposite party is false and amounts to deficiency in service.  He lost an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards various expenses and he suffered mental agony amounting to Rs.25,000/-, the fear of death also valued as Rs.25,000/-.  Thus he caused a lawyer notice dated 29/9/14 stating all the above facts which were not replied till date.  Hence this complaint.

          On receiving complaint notice issued to opposite parties and they filed detailed version.  In their version they stated that the complaint is not maintainable.  The opposite party is unaware about hospitalization and discharge of  complainant.  Opposite party also unaware about the advice regarding continuous monitoring  of platelet count.  Hence the same is denied.  The allegation of death due to less platelet count is also denied.  If that be so, he will not be discharged from the hospital.  Dr.Dineshkumar is not a partner or employee of 1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party is unnecessary  party.  The test conducted at the opposite party from  17 to 23  and respective report showing platelet count is denied.  Threat of death, consultation of another doctor respective expenses also denied.  Allegation  of test conducted at  Sudharma lab is also denied and the test conducted on the same day with 1^st opposite party is also denied.  Admission and blood test at Aswini hospital and respective result is also denied.  1^st opposite party conducted the test.  There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.  Blood test at the request of the complainant were done properly and accurately and issued correct result.  Blood test conducted from 17^th to 23^rd were done in 3 days interval  and allegation otherwise denied.  2^nd opposite party has  52 years practice with considerable  good will.  The method of blood test done was as per the scientific method published by                  renowned and well experienced doctors of Vellore Christian Medical College and  normal count of platelet is 1,00,000 to 3,00,00/-.  The test conducted using  cell counter  machine gives a normal range as  1,50,000 to 4,50,000.  The platelet count of patient is affected by medicine, food items, drugs, loss of sleep and tension etc.  Use of certain leaves causes variation in platelet count.  Hence there is every chance  of variation in platelet count  if tested at different times.  Platelet count below 1,00,000 will not cause threat to life and it becomes fatal when the count goes below 50,000.  The lawyer notice were properly replied through the reply notice dated 16/8/14 and acknowledgement card also received showing receipt of the reply as on 22/8/14.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief and prayed for dismissal.

          Points for consideration:

1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2)Reliefs and costs

          Complainant filed proof affidavit and produced  13 documents, which are marked as Ext.P1 to P13.   Ext.P1 copy of lawyer notice dtd.29/7/14, Ext.P2 postal receipt, Ext.P3 A/D card, Ext.P4 blood test report dtd. 17/7/14, Ext.P5 blood test report dtd. 21/7/14, Ext.P6 prescription of Dr.K.S.Udayabhanu, Ext.P7 blood test report dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P8 bill dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P9 blood test report dtd.23/7/14, Ext.P10 Blood test report dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P11 copy of complaint to IMA secy. Dtd. 29/7/14, Ext.P12 A/D card, Ext.P13 copy of complaint   dt.29/7/14.   19 documents produced from the side of opposite parties and marked as Exts.R1 to R19.  Ext.R1 copy of Regn. Certificate, copy of certificate dtd. 23/6/14, Ext.R3 copy of receipt for affiliation dt.1/8/12, Ext.R4 copy of reply notice, Ext.R5 A/D card, Ext.R6 series copy of medical prescriptions, Ext.R7 blood test report,  Ext.R8 Blood test report from Polyclinic, Ext.R9 Malayala Manorama daily dtd. 3/8/15,  Ext.R10(SP) calculation method of platelet count, Ext.R11(SP) details of infection, Ext.R12(SP) details of tests and diagnosis, Ext.R13(SP)details of tests, Ext.R14(SP) copy of research article,Ext.R15(SP)details of dengue fever, Ext.R16(SP) details of Dengue fever, Ext.R17(SP) normal platelet count – details, Ext.R18(SP) Dengue control details, Ext.R19(SP) Platelet counts and platelet indices.  The medical record from Aswini hospital is marked as Ext.X1.

          Points: The case of the complainant is that he admitted in Aswini  hospital on 13/7/14.  Ext.X1 proves the same.  The crux of the allegation is that the doctor advised complainant  on discharge that regular monitoring of platelet count in blood is highly necessary.  Hence he approached 1^st opposite party  continuously from 17^th to 23^rd to examine the same.  The result shown a reduced value causing  alarm to the complainant.  He conducted blood test at Sudharma lab which shown a higher value.  So on day itself he further conducted blood test with opposite party which shown a considerable change in platelet count and he has to consult  a doctor for  treatment and the test conducted therein was in parity with the result  shown in Sudharma lab.  Ext.X1 shows platelet count of 1,40,000 on 13/7/14 and 1,10,000 on 14/7/14.  Ext.P4 proves the test conducted on 17/7/14 at 1^st opposite party which shows a total platelet count of 1,10,000  per cumm.  Ext.P5 dated 21/7/14 shows platelet count as 1,00,000 per cumm.  Now Ext.P8 shows a platelet count 4,71,910 as on 23/7/14 and on the very same day Ext.P9 shows total platelet count of 1,10,000 per cumm.  Ext.P10 issued   by Aswini hospital showed platelet count 4,89,000.  Hence Ext.P8 and Ext.P10 were in parity with each other,  even though that do not show exact same  result and Ext.P9 clearly proves the platelet count at a considerable low range of 1,10,000.  Therefore the case of complainant  regarding the considerable difference in result stands proved.

          On the other hand opposite party produced Exts.R1 to R19 documents, but which does not explain or prove about the considerable disparity between Exts.P9 with Ext.P8 and Ext.P10.  Therefore we are of the view that the opposite party could not establish a specific defense case improbalising the  case of the complainant.

          Now opposite parties are expert in the field.  The method of conducting test and its scientific sanctity is only within the special knowledge of opposite parties.  It cannot be believed that a common man of normal  prudence can have a skilled knowledge of the method of test conducted at each medical laboratories.  Therefore the complainant herein may not be expected to describe all the methods of conducting blood test.  Therefore the burden heavily shifts to the opposite parties to explain and prove regarding the special knowledge that they have about the conduct of the blood test.  The opposite party miserably failed to discharge their respective burden, especially when the complainant established a strong case through Ext.P8 and Ext.P10.  Now counsel for opposite party invited our attention  to Ext.R7 and Ext.R8 dated 23/12/14 to compare and convince the blood test  result conducted in different labs.  Ext.R7 and Ext.R8 shows different value but the same is negligible like the result shown in Ext.P8 and P10.  So the argument with regard to normality difference in test in different lab with a variation will not sustain any more

          Now 2^nd opposite party has been impleaded but none of the record shows his authority regarding the conduct of 1st opposite party.  Moreover we have gone through Ext.R6 series, even though it is marked subject to proof.  Since no specific allegation is there with regard to the responsibility and liability of 2^nd opposite party we are inclined to exonerate him from any liability that may found against 1^st opposite party. The records of study produced by opposite parties does not affect the crux of the case.

          Considering the evidence as a whole and from the above discussion we are inclined to allow this complaint.   Since the complainant not turned  up for oral examination even though it is not necessary under the Act, we are not inclined to consider the cost of the proceedings.  It is true that the complainant put to high mental agony and physical hardships and same is to be compensated by the opposite parties.

          In the result complaint is allowed and hereby direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards loss due to expenses and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony.  All the amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt  of copy of this order.  Failing in which the same would carry an  interest of 6% per annum from the date of this order.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30^th    day of November   2021.

Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

Sreeja.S                                                       C.T.Sabu                       

Member                                                       President                            

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

Ext.P1 copy of lawyer notice dtd.29/7/14, Ext.P2 postal receipt, Ext.P3 A/D card, Ext.P4 blood test report dtd. 17/7/14, Ext.P5 blood test report dtd. 21/7/14, Ext.P6 prescription of Dr.K.S.Udayabhanu, Ext.P7 blood test report dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P8 bill dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P9 blood test report dtd.23/7/14, Ext.P10 Blood test report dtd. 23/7/14, Ext.P11 copy of complaint to IMA secy. Dtd. 29/7/14, Ext.P12 A/D card, Ext.P13 copy of complaint   dt.29/7/14  

Opposite Parties Exhibits     

Ext.R1 copy of Regn. Certificate, copy of certificate dtd. 23/6/14, Ext.R3 copy of receipt for affiliation dt.1/8/12, Ext.R4 copy of reply notice, Ext.R5 A/D card, Ext.R6 series copy of medical prescriptions, Ext.R7 blood test report,  Ext.R8 Blood test report from Polyclinic, Ext.R9 Malayala Manorama daily dtd. 3/8/15,  Ext.R10(SP) calculation method of platelet count, Ext.R11(SP) details of infection, Ext.R12(SP) details of tests and diagnosis, Ext.R13(SP)details of tests, Ext.R14(SP) copy of research article,Ext.R15(SP)details of dengue fever, Ext.R16(SP) details of Dengue fever, Ext.R17(SP) normal platelet count – details, Ext.R18(SP) Dengue control details, Ext.R19(SP) Platelet counts and platelet indices. 

The medical record from Aswini hospital is marked as Ext.X1.

                                                                                          Id/-

                                                                                      Member