MR RAMSANKAR NAYAK, MEMBER… The factual matrix of case is that, the complainant approached the OP.no.2 Medical for testing the Urine Protein/ Creatinine Ratio of his son Sampath Behera, aged about 11 years with an advise of Dr R.Atchum Naidu, M.D. Pediatrics on dt.08.09.2016 at about 7.30 to 8 A.M and obtained report on the same day at about 5.PM. For the above tests the complainant has paid requisite fees of Rs.500/- and obtained the receipt. The report so given by the OP.s specified with 5.37 units, whereas the normal reading is 0.03 to 03 units. The report shows so abnormal which causing severe kidney damage or needs to be transplant/replacement of kidney. Hence the complainant being father mentally shocked and with an advise of his family friend on the very next day i.e. on 09.09.16 he again approached the same medical with his son for same test at about 9 AM and the report he received at about 5 PM, and the report appears total different then the previous one by 0.78 units, which reflects slight more than normal condition and for the second test the complainant has paid requisite fees of Rs.250/- and obtained the money receipt. Hence the complainant contends that, the action of OP.s so negligent for which action he put into severe mental agony which cannot be compensated in terms of money. So he prayed before the forum to allow a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The OP.s entered their appearance through their counsel on dt.25.10.2016 and filed nothing except an objection petition along with affidavit under Order 14 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC on the ground of jurisdiction and failed to file his counter in the case. The counsel for complainant has filed copy of relevant documents along with affidavit of complainant and another affidavit of Mr Sadasiba Dash, who is the agent of OP.s. Both the parties has been heard the case at length and perused the records.
3. Before delving into the results the forum raises following issues,
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the OP.s ?
ii. Whether the forum has jurisdiction to try the case ?
iii. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.s ?
iv. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as claimed ?
4. On the very beginning the counsel for OP.s vehemently objected on the subject of jurisdiction of the forum. As far as jurisdiction of the forum is concerned, Sec.11 (2)(a)(b) & (c) of C.P.Act 1986 contemplated that, "A complaint shall be instituted in a Dist. Forum with the local limits of who jurisdiction-
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or
(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the Dist. Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution, or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
5. It reveals from the record that, the counsel for complainant has filed a sworn affidavit of one Sri Sadasiba Dash, aged about 49 years, S/o late Brundaban Dash, At- Goudo street, Nabarangpur, who said to have an agent of OP.s medical who refers patients of this local area through doctors to the Vijaya Medical, Visakhapatanam and through agents the OP.s carrying their business and gain huge profits from Nabarangpur District, hence from the above statutory contents it is clear that the forum has jurisdiction to entertain the case.
6. On the other hand the counsel for complainant has filed two test report bills one is dt.08.09.2016 for Rs.500/-, another is dt.09.09.2016 for Rs.250/- towards testing of Urine Protein/ Creatinine Ratio of his son Sampath Behera. Here it is seen that, on the first test the OP.s reflected 5.37 units but on the second test the OP.s given the test report of just 0.78 units, whereas the normal range of Urine Protein/ Creatinine Ratio is 0.03 to 0.3 which seems that, the OP.s have tested wrong on their first test. It is beyond our imagination when the complainant with immense mental tension approached second time for the same test, the OP.s unless rectify their own fault again demanded Rs.250/- from the complainant, which is against the principles of res judicata and the action itself shows the malfeasance nature of OP.s. So in our view there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.s and the complainant is entitled for reliefs. Hence from the whole transaction it is clear that the complainant is a consumer against the OP.s and due to the arbitrary, illegal and highhanded actions the complainant inflicted great humiliation, mental agony, financial losses which cannot be evaluated in terms of money.
As thus we allow the complaint against the OP.s with cost.
O R D E R
i. The opposite parties 1 & 2 supra severally & collaterally are hereby directed to refund Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred) as charges of defective test report, inter alia, to pay Rs.25,000/-(Twenty Five Thousand) as compensation and a sum of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand) towards the cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. All the above directions shall be complied with in 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which, the total sum will bear 12% interest per annum to till its realization. Order pronounced on this the 15th day of April' 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
