BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. SATHI. R : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 332/2010 filed on 18/10/2010
Dated: 31..05..2014
Complainant:
K.K. Vinod Kumar, Udaya Bhavan, Viswapuram, Perayam – P.O., Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. N. Satheesh Kumar)
Opposite parties:
1. Dr. Nathani’s Diagnostic Clinic, Chalakuzhy Lane, Pattom – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004. Represented by its Proprietor, Dr. Mehaboob Nathani.
2. The Proprietor, Meditrust Diagnostics and Laboratory, Spectrum Chamber, TC 4/2563(12)(14), Kuravankonam, Pattom-Kowdiar Road, Kowdiar – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.
(Opp. Parties 1 & 2 by Adv. P. Krishnankutty Nair)
This C.C having been heard on 17..05..2014, the Forum on 31..05..2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant was employed in Muscat as Aluminium Fabricator and was forced to come to India on February 2006 due to urgent family matters, that thereafter complainant was trying to get suitable visa to Muscat with a view to get over the financial crisis in the family, that during the month of July 2010 complainant was contacted by his former employer company and complainant agreed to join the said Company, that as per the procedure adopted in Muscat for migration under labour Visa the applicant shall get the medical report from the approved laboratory and send the same to the employer and embassy for the purpose of processing visa, that only a medically fit person will get labour visa in that country, that, therefore, complainant approached the 1st opposite party Dr. Nathani’s Diagnostic Clinic, Chalakuzhy Lane represented by its Proprietor, Dr. Mehaboob Nathani on 2/8/2010 at about 9.30AM which claims to be an approved Medical Laboratory for giving report to Foreign Affairs Ministry of Muscat, that at about 10.30 AM a staff of the 1st opposite party had called the names of about 30 persons and asked them to get into a Tempo Traveller parked in the 1st opposite party’s institution, that 1st opposite party had informed the applicants that since there is rush in the opposite party laboratory, they have a sister concern nearby and the test will be carried out there for the applicants whose names were called by him, that complainant and others were taken into the 2nd opposite party’s institution, Meditrust Diagnostics and Laboratory, Kuravankonam and there the complainant paid Rs. 2250/- as directed by the 2nd opposite party, that the complainant’s blood sample was collected and X-ray was also taken, that complainant was asked to come at 5PM, that at 5PM on2/8/2010 2nd opposite party informed the complainant that they want to check the complainant after a week and directed him to come after a week, that accordingly complainant went to 2nd opposite party on 10/8/2010 at 10AM, that at that time the blood sample of the complainant was taken and had collected another Rs.300/- as additional fee, but no receipt was issued and directed him to come at 5PM that day, that accordingly complainant went there at 5PM and complainant was called in the Doctor’s room where the 2nd opposite party and some other staff were also present, that they had informed the complainant that there is some variation in his blood which indicated jaundice and that they are going to stamp the report as “unfit”, that they had added that if such a situation happens complainant cannot get a visa, that 2nd opposite party and the Doctor present there had directed to him to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to give a fit report, but no medical report was handed over to the complainant at that time, that complainant was totally shocked by the attitude of the opposite party, that complainant thereafter went to Dr. Jayakumar, a Physician in the General Hospital on 11/8/2010 to know about the alleged disease, that as per his direction complainant gave a blood sample to Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services at Nedumangadu on12/8/2010, that complainant received the report on 13/8/2010, that on perusal of the report, Dr. Jayakumar informed him that the result seems normal, but as he has not seen the report of the 2nd opposite party as what exact test was done, no conclusive opinion was given, that therefore complainant on 14/8/2010 went to 2nd opposite party to get the report, but they refused to give and informed him that they will not part with the same, that on insistence of the complainant opposite party gave the report on 14/08/2010, that on perusal of the said report the Doctor informed that there is only a query as “Anti HCV: ? reactive”, but not as positive or negative from which no conclusion can be arrived at, that as per the Doctors advice on 14/8/2010 at 6 PM the complainant went to Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services, Nedumangad and gave blood sample for testing HCV, that the result of the same was non-reactive, that the complainant with these results went to 2nd opposite party on 16/8/2010 and showed them the various tests conducted by the complainant subsequent to the investigation of the 2nd opposite party, that at that time the 2nd opposite party took a stand that the test at Dr. Gopinath’s Clinic was a card test, but in the 2nd opposite party institution they are checking it by Elisa Test, that to ascertain differences in reports complainant on 16/8/2010 went to another approved Medical Diagnostic Centre by name Health Care Diagnostic Centre, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram for a medical report, that the place of employment was shown to them as Oman, the report was given on 17/8/2010 and the report revealed that the complainant is medically fit, that as an abundant caution complainant on 17/8/2010 evening went to Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services again and had conducted HCV antibody, Serum by Elisa test, test result showed non-reactive, that on perusal of the report Dr. Jayakumar informed the complainant that he is not suffering from HCV & HBV, that even though complainant had obtained fitness certificate from Health Care, the same could not save him since there is already a report making him unfit, even if complainant managed to obtain visa on the basis of the second report he would be likely to de-ported once he lands in Muscat, that the labour visa mandates medical fitness report on either side. Hence the employer denied the opportunity to get visa, that opposite parties deliberately with the malafide intention of usurping money from the complainant had stamped in his medical report as unfit, even though the complainant is not having any ailments, that complainant’s whole life was spoiled by the deficiency in service of the opposite party, the employer at Muscat had given the visa to another person and the complainant was totally denied of any opportunities. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss and mental agony along with cost.
2. Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the statements contained in the complaint are distorted facts with an intention to harass the opposite parties and to obtain an order on suppression of facts, that opposite party is not concerned to know about the work details of the complainant, that any employee to get job visa in Gulf countries will have to undergo medical check up under recognised medical centre like the opposite parties of the Gulf countries, that the 1st & 2nd opposite parties are the recognised, approved medical centres of the Gulf countries including Muscat, that both medical centres are well equipped with equipments such as 500 MA Wiproge, X-ray machine, Kodak C.R Machine, Johnson & Johnson Vitros ECI for Serology Test, Biorad Ellisa Washer Reader, Star 21 Plus for Bio Chemistry Test and Microscope (Binocular) and managed by the qualified Technical Staff as approved by Executive Board of the Health Ministers Council for Co-operation Concilates, that complainant first approached the 1st opposite party for medical check up, there were many job seekers waiting for medical check up to be conducted to enable to get Visa based on Medical Clean Report, that there was low voltage on 2/8/2010 in the 1st opposite party’s clinical centre and therefore the complainant was directed to approach any other authorised medical centre for medical examination, that 2nd opposite party is the nearest medical centre authorised by the Director General of Health Minister’s of G.C.C countries and hence the complainant was directed to go over to the 2nd opposite party for medical check up along with few others who as well were waiting for medical check up like the complainant, that complainant paid Rs.2250/- being the recognised, authorised fee for medical check up to be conducted for any person seeking employment in G.C.C countries, that the said fee is fixed and authorised by the Gulf countries including Muscat, that the blood sample of the complainant was collected on 2/8/200, that X-ray was taken on that day, that the complainant was asked to report at 5PM on the same date to collect the medical report, that accordingly, complainant came at 5PM and collected the medical report on 2/8/2010 itself, that the test result of blood was as follows:
ELISA
HIV.1.2 Test - Negative
HBS Ag. - Negative
Anti HCV - Reactive
VDRL - Non-reactive
TPHA - Non-reactive
Based on the above test result conducted by the qualified Medical Practitioner Dr. Priyasenan, he certified that the complainant is “unfit”, based on the said certificate, complainant cannot avail Visa to go abroad due to his health condition result as proved above as on 2/8/2010, that complainant was not directed to come on 10/8/2010 nor that any additional fee was collected on any date after 2/8/2010, except the usual approved fee of Rs. 2250/- was collected and for which receipt was issued, that in both the institutions, whatever amount is received and spent is properly, regularly, accounted for which receipts were issued to the complainant, that all income and expenditure of the opposite party are subject to audit, that the pleading of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs. 300/- on 10/8/2010 is an imaginary statement and not supported by evidence, that the demand of Rs. 15,000/- from the complainant by the opposite party is absolutely false and emphatically denied, that had complainant been not satisfied of the medical report of the 2nd opposite party dated 2/8/2010, the complainant could have immediately approached any other authorised medical centre of G.C.C countries functioning in India, that the present complaint is to extract money from the opposite party, that instead of approaching the G.C.C authorised medical centres complainant opted to go to other medical centres and obtained medical certificate, that the test result conducted elsewhere, other than at the authorised medical centre of the G.C.C countries shall not bind any of the opposite parties and the employer, that had there been any complaint against the opposite parties as to conduct of test and issue of medical certificate, the best course of action of the complainant is to report the alleged complaint to the employer and to the Director General of C-operation Council of State of G.C.C, having not done so it must be deemed and concluded that the certificates produced and as obtained from other non-recognised medical centres are obtained for the purpose to lodge false complaint to this forum with an attempt to get any financial assistance, that certificate dated 2/8/2010 was issued in the evening of that day itself, the report of the Dr. Gopinath of the opposite party nor shall help the complainant to obtain visa as that clinic is not an authorised medical centre for issue of Medical Certificate, that the certificate issued by Health Care Diagnostic Centre, Manacaud shall not bind the opposite parties, if the certificate issued by Health Care Diagnostic Centre is true, nothing prevented the complainant to get job visa, that the opposite parties have no malafide intention to harass the complainant or to deny employment opportunities to the complainant, had complainant been aggrieved of the service rendered by the 2nd opposite party he could very well lodge complaint to the authority who issued the certificate / license to the 2nd opposite party to conduct medical check up for Emigrant like the complainant, no such complaint was lodged by the complainant, that there is no medical negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant, that complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite parties. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
(ii) Whether complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P9. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed affidavit.
4. Points (i) & (ii): The crux of the complaint is that the opposite parties deliberately with malafide intention, had stamped in his medical report as ‘unfit’ even though complainant is not having any ailments. It has been the case of the complainant that as directed by Dr. Jayakumar, complainant approached Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services at Nedumangadu on 12/8/2010 and gave blood sample for test. On perusal of the test report Dr. Jayakumar informed the complainant that the result seemed normal. The very case of the complainant is that he got the test report dated 2/8/2010 from the 2nd opposite party on 14/8/2010. On perusal of the said report Doctor informed him that there is only a query as Anti HCV: ? reactive, from which no conclusion can be arrived at. So as per the advice his Doctor on 14/8/2010 complainant went to Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services and gave blood sample for testing HCV. Again complainant approached Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services on 17/8/2010 and had conducted HCV antibody, Serum by Elisa test. The result received on 18/8/2010 was also non-reactive. On perusal of the said report Dr. Jayakumar informed him that complainant is not suffering from HCV & HBV. Complainant to substantiate his case filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P9. Ext.P1 is the copy of the passport. Ext.P2 is the copy of the receipt dated 02/8 for Rs. 2250/- issued by the 2nd opposite party. The year is not written in Ext. P2. Ext.P3 is the Medical Report issued by Meditrust, the date of report is 2/8/2010. The Medical Report is seen signed by Dr. Priya Senan. Ext.P4 is the copy of report dated 13/8/2010 given by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services. As per Ext.P3 Elisa Test reveals as follows:
1. HIV 1,2 Test - Negative
2. HBs Ag - Negative
3. Anti HCV - ? Reactive
As per Ext.P4 HBs Ag, Serum by Elisa is Non-reactive. There is no report on anti HCV in Ext. P4. It is not clear from Ext.P4 whether Anti HCV test had conducted or not. Ext.P5 is the copy of the report regarding HCV card test. The said report is seen issued on 14/8/2010. On perusal of HCV test it is reported non-reactive. Ext.P6 is the copy of the Medical Report issued by Health Care Diagnostic Centre. As per Ext.P6 it is reported that anti HCV non-reactive. Ext.P7 is the copy of the report dated 18/8/2010 given by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services, Nedumangadu. As per Ext.P7 HCV antibody, serum by Elisa is non-reactive. Ext.P7, Ext.P4 & Ext.P5 are seen signed by Senior Lab Technician while Ext.P3 the original Medical Report issued by 2nd opposite party is signed by Dr. PriyaSenan. Ext.P6 is seen signed by Dr. Nizar. In Ext.P6 the Medical Report is for Oman, which is certified that complainant is ‘fit’ while in Ext.P3 it is certified that complainant is ‘unfit’. Ext.P8 is the copy of the certificate dated 18/8/2010 issued by Dr. Jayakumar stating that “Mr. K.K. Vinod Kumar is not suffering from HCV & HBV infection as per Elisa report done in Dr.Gopinath Diagnostic Services”. Ext. P9 is the copy of Medical Report dated 26/08/2010 issued by Celica Medical Centre, Cochin. As per Ext. P9 Anti HCV is reported negative. Ext. P9 report is seen signed by Authorised Signatory. It is pertinent to point out that Ext.P3 is the Original Medical Report dated 2/8/2010 issued by 2nd opposite party and the said report is seen signed by Dr. Priya Senan. As per Ext.P3 Anti HCV :? Reactive. It is on the basis of that result 2nd opposite party reported that Vinod Kumar is unfit for aluminium Fabrication Job. It is to be noted that Ext.P3 reveals Medical Examination and Laboratory Investigation. The Medical aspects of the examination has to be substantiated by expert opinion. Herein complainant has not adduced expert evidence in regard to medical examination and laboratory investigation. It is further to be noted that Exts.P4, P5, P7 & P9 are signed by Authorised Signatory. It is not clear from those documents whether Authorised Signatory are doctors or not. As per Ext.P6 medical report is seen signed by Dr. Nizar, who certifies that Mr. Vinod Kumar is fit. Dr. Jayakumar issued a handwritten certificate on 18/8/2010 stating that Shri. K.K. Vinod Kumar is not suffering from HCV or HBV, as per Elisa report done in Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services. It is to be noted that Dr. Jayakumar has written certificate on the basis of the test report issued by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services. Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services is not an Authorised Clinical Centre for issuance of fitness certificate. Further it is specifically stated in Ext.P6 that complainant approached Health Care Diagnostic Centre to obtain a medical certificate to go to Oman. The said report is 17/8/2010 while the disputed report dated 2/8/2010 issued by 2nd opposite party is for Muscat. It is to be noted that complainant approached the opposite party for a medical certificate to go to Muscat while complainant approached the Health Care Diagnostic Centre for Medical Certificate to go to Oman. The dates of tests are different. How could a Medical Certificate be issued to go to Oman while the complainant himself admits that he had a job visa to go to Muscat. The Doctor who had issued the certificate to go to Oman has not been examined. Nor has complainant examined Dr. Jayakumar, who issued Ext.P8. Even Dr. PriyaSenan, who issued Ext.P3 Medical Report was not examined nor has complainant taken any step to examine Dr. PriyaSenan to disprove the medical report issued by opposite party nor has complainant attempted to adduce expert opinion regarding the discrepancy reflected in the medical report issued by opposite party and medical report issued by Health Care Diagnostic Centre. The onus would lay on the complainant to establish his case by expert opinion or by examining the doctors who issued Exts. P3 & P6. There is no material on record to discredit Ext.P3. Complainant is not competent to speak about the medical aspects of medical examination or laboratory investigation. Further no attempt was made by the complainant to furnish medical report from Public Health Laboratory. Complainant never sought any expert opinion regarding the contents of Exts. P3 & P6. There is no material on record to show that Ext.P3 was issued by the 2nd opposite party deliberately with malafide intention of usurping money from the complainant. In view of the above, we find there is nothing to attribute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complaint is sans merits and deserves dismissal which we hereby direct.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of May 2014.
Sd/- G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-R. SATHI : MEMBER
Ad. Sd/- LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C.No: 332/2010
APPENDIX
I. Complainant’s witness:
PW1 : K.K. Vinodkumar
II. Complainant’s documents:
P1 : Copy of the Passport
P2 : Copy of the receipt No.851 dated 02/08 for Rs. 2250/- issued by the 2nd opposite party
P3 : Medical Report dated 02/08/2010 issued by the 2nd opposite party
P4 : Copy of report dated 13/08/2010 issued by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services
P5 : Copy of the report dated 14/08/2010 issued by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services
P6 : Copy of the Medical Report issued by Health Care Diagnostic Centre
P7 : Copy of the report dated 18/08/2010 given by Dr. Gopinath’s Diagnostic Services
P8 : Copy of the certificate dated 18/08/2010 issued by Dr. Jayakumar
P9 : Copy of Medical report dated 26/08/2010 issued by Celica Medical Centre, Cochin
III. Opposite parties’ witness : N I L
IV. Opposite parties’ documents : N I L
Sd/-
Ad. PRESIDENT
