BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 26 of 09.04.2021
Date of decision : 19.09.2022
Kuldeep Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of Near Khera Morinda, District Rupnagar
......Complainant
Versus
- Dr. G.B. Singh, PMC 28295, MD Radio Diagnosis Consultant Radiologist, Paul Diagnostic Center SCO No.20-21, Bhagwati Market (Jolly Market) Near Bus Stand Morinda.
- Dr. Vikas Mittal DNB (Radio Diagnosis) Ex-PGI Chandigarh Consultant Radiologist PMC No.32016 Mittal Diagnostic and Scan Center, C-3/4 Naseeb Complex, Adjoining OBC Bank, Near Bus Stand Morinda
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Varinder Kumar Dhiman, Adv. for complainant
Sh. Mandeep Moudgil, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1
O.P. No.2 ex-parte
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that on 03.06.2019, the complainant was suffering from abdomen pain and urination problems. He went to the Civil Hospital, Morinda and he was thoroughly checked by the Doctor Sanjay. On the advice of Dr. Sanjay, the complainant had undergone the USG whole abdomen test from the Paul Diagnostic Center i.e. OP No.1. On the basis of the report made by the OP No.1 was informed to the complainant that he was suffering from Kidney Stone measuring 5.4 mm and advised to him for PSA test for look for sign of prostate cancer. On the instruction of doctor, the complainant has got the abdomen test from the OP No.1 and he had availed service for consideration from the OP. Thereafter, the complainant has got conducted same test from the other laboratory i.e. OP No.2 on 04.06.2019 and gave the report to the effect that there is abnormality and stone in the kidney/abdomen of complainant. It appears that the OP No.1 has given wrong report therefore the complainant suffered mental tension. OP No.1 has committed medical negligence. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has sought the following relief:-
- to return the test fee and impose the penalty Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.8,00,000/- for unfair trade practice.
2. In reply, the OP No.1 has filed taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint does not lie nor the complainant has any locus standi to file the present complaint; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands; that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP No.1; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. On merits, it is stated that complainant has got USG conducted from OP No.1 on 3.6.2019 and allegedly from OP No.2 on 04.06.2019, which shows that the complainant has kept silent for the period of approximately two years for the reason best known to him. In-fact the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to pressurize the OP No.1 in order to extract money from the OP No.1 illegally. It is further alleged that as per the USG whole abdominal on 03.09.2019 in the diagnostic centre of the OP No.1, there was renal calculus measuring about 5.4 MM, which is seen in the upper calyx in the left kidney of the patient Kuldeep Singh, which is a small stone in general language. Such a small stone and even the stone measuring 7/8 MM can pass through urine or is generally removed through urine in normal course without causing much pain or in some cases without any pain to the patient at any point of time. In the present case, when the patient Kuldeep Singh came to the diagnostic centre of the answering OP then he was suffering from severe pain as disclosed by him and possibility of removal of the said stone on that very day cannot be ruled out as before conducting the USG abdomen, the patient is asked to drink plenty of water and even during the course of USG of abdomen or thereafter when the patient passes the urine such a small stone may pass out. So far as the question of enlarged prostate is concerned in that regard whatever finding was seen was reported in the report by the answering OP. The question of another USG got conducted by the patient Kuldeep Singh on 4.6.2019 and its report are concerned, nothing can be commented about the same, as the answering OP was not present there at the time of conducting USG by OP NO.2 nor the answering OP has ever seen the images of the USG conducted by opposite party No.2. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
3. In reply, the OP No.2 has filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has filed the present complaint alleging the deficiency on the part of OP No.1 and has wrongly impleaded the OP No.2 as a party to the complaint, despite the fact that he has not and the alleged any deficiency in service to the OP No.2; that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the answering OP.
4. The learned counsel for the parties have tendered certain documents in support of their version and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
6. From the perusal of the file, it is writ large that when the complainant gone to OP No.1 for UCG then the OP No.1 was disclosed to him that the complainant was suffering from Kidney Stone measuring 5.4 mm and advised to him for PSA test for look for sign of prostate cancer. Thereafter, the complainant has got conducted same test from the other laboratory i.e. OP No.2 on 04.06.2019 and gave the report to the effect that there is abnormality and stone in the kidney/abdomen of complainant. Due to the above said act and conduct of OP No.1 the complainant has suffered lot of mental tension.
7. In view of the above discussions, we feel, that complainant is able to convey his complaint or allegations against the OPs clearly. In such, peculiar situation, we are able to grant any relief to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed with the directions to the OP No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED (RANJIT SINGH)
Dated.19.09.2022 PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
