Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Amit Mehra has brought the instant complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations  that opposite party No.2 is a renowned hospital in the city of Amritsar for its services and maintains a blood bank division for the storage of blood  and/or blood products, after conducting and performing requisite tests thereto. The blood and/or blood products are sold at different counters at exorbitant price rates by the aforesaid hospital. Opposite party No.1 namely Dr. Gopal Kumar Patidhar is the head and Incharge of the Blood Bank Division of the aforesaid hospital  and all the managerial and/or administration work including the collection of the blood, sampling and/or screening of blood products, testing and examinations, transfusion of the blood products, reporting and/or consultations, and/or such other works are executed either under his directions and/or supervision or by him personally. In July 2016, the complainant went to the aforesaid hospital for donating blood at the behest of his close friend. After donation of the blood, the complainant was informed by one of the staff members  of the hospital  that the blood as donated by the complainant has received some ‘objections’ from the concerned laboratory and was further asked to meet the Incharge namely Dr. Gopal Kumar patidhar . However, no formal test report or receipt showing such objections was given  to the complainant except a mere noting on a piece of paper  which was asked to be shown to the Incharge i.e. opposite party No.1 only. Thereafter the complainant was informed by opposite party No.1  that complainant was surely suffering from AIDS as well as chronic Hepatitis C Liver disease and  the complainant was further advised to consult the doctors of opposite party No.2 for treatment and cure thereto. The complainant was shocked and had sleepless nights for days. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid piece of paper was kept by opposite party No.1 only but the complainant managed to take the picture of the same with the help of the camera phone. Since the complainant never had any signs or symptoms of any of the aforesaid diseases, the complainant opted to undergo the blood tests once again. The complainant got the test conducted from Dr. Lal Paths Labs and Kahlon Diagnostics. After receiving the reports from the abovenamed laboratories, the complainant was shocked and surprised  as all the tests were answered in Negative. The complainant then rushed to opposite party No.2 and met opposite party No.1 to show the aforesaid reports. However after perusing the reports , opposite party No.1 declared the aforesaid reports as palpably wrong and forged and asked the complainant to undergo the tests again but from the laboratory of opposite party No.2 only. The complainant was assured as to the quality of service being rendered by the opposite parties.  However, the complainant was charged exorbitantly for these tests also. As the tests were performed  at the referral and/or asking of the opposite party No.1 only, therefore, no receipt of the amount paid was issued to the complainant. On arrival of the test report, one of the staff members informed  that the test report has been answered as positive and he was suffering from AIDS  as well as chronic Hepatitis C Liver disease. When the complainant met the opposite party No.1 , opposite party No.1 started to humiliate , pressurize the complainant for questioning the validity and correctness of the test report . Opposite party No.1 also threw the reports at the face of the complainant and was asked to leave the premises. Since the complainant was not satisfied  regarding the accuracy of the test report issued by the opposite parties, the complainant again  got the blood tests from SRL Diagnostics for which again the complainant had to pay hefty charges. After receiving the reports from the aforesaid Laboratory, the complainant was surprised   that all the tests were answered in Negative again. Due to deliberate acts of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered huge loss and injury due to harassment, mental agony at the hands of the opposite parties. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite parties be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20,000/-  to the complainant.

(b)     Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs. 20000/- incurred in going through various tests through various laboratories again and again.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the claim of the complainant is based on the plea that the opposite parties had misguided the complainant stating that the complainant was suffering from AIDS and Hepatitis C  and pursuant to which the complainant had to incur huge loss in getting the blood samples tested in different  diagnostics centres such as Dr. Lal Pathlabs, Kahlon Diagnostics and SRL Diagnostics. However, the complainant has not filed any document to substantiate his submissions; that the complaint filed by the complainant is vague and lacks in material particulars. It was wrongfully submitted by the complainant that opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that the complainant was suffering from AIDS and Hepatitis C. Whereas bare perusal of the transfusion transmitted infection donor notification  and counseling Register maintained by opposite party No.2 hospital , it is clear that the complainant with a malafide intention is trying to mislead this  Forum. The register does not indicate that the complainant was being infected with AIDS. It was submitted that on 15-7-2016  complainant approached opposite party No.1 for donating blood at the behest of the complainant’s friend Mr.Jogender Singh wherein the complainant duly filled in the blood donation questionnaire and consent form bearing registration No. 7470. The complainant in the consent form had declared that the complainant had no reason to believe that he may be infected by either Hepatitis, Malaria, HIV/AIDS and/or venereal diseases. The complainant donated the blood at opposite party No.2 hospital which was subject to screening in order to make sure that the blood donated by the complainant is free from infections/virus such as HIV/AIDS Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C etc. During the screening of the blood  donated by the complainant, it was observed  by the opposite parties that  the blood donated by the complainant was reactive to HBVII test for Hepatitis C . In accordance with the action plan for blood safety laid down by the National AIDS control Organization, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, since the opposite parties were ethically bound to inform the complainant that some immediate results were not conclusive,  opposite party No.1 informed the complainant  telephonically and requested the complainant to visit opposite party No.2 hospital for counseling and confirmation.  In compliance with the guidelines and procedures, opposite party No.2 on 19-7-2016 called the complainant and requested him to visit opposite party No.2 hospital  that immediate results of blood donated by the complainant on 15/7/2016 were not conclusive  and required the complainant’s personal presence for clarification. However, the complainant visited opposite party No.2 on 23.7.2016 wherein he was informed that the blood donated by the complainant had been tested positive with Hepatitis C. The complainant’s blood samples were taken again by opposite party No.2 hospital for repeat test  which again resulted Hepatitis C positive. During counseling it was clear that complainant had undergone treatment for jaundice 20 years ago. The complainant was informed that opposite party No.2 hospital was only running a blood bank and not a laboratory and the complainant was advised to get a confirmatory blood test done by a dully equipped diagnostic centre . On 25.7.2016 complainant approached Dr. Lal Pathlabs and Kahlon Diagnostics  and the result turned out to be Negative. It is pertinent to mention that the methodology  used by the aforesaid Labs  was not the same as used by the opposite parties. On 29.7.2016 complainant visited opposite party No.2 and informed opposite party No.1 that the test results of Dr. Lal Pathlabs and Kahlon Diagnostics tested negative. In order to satisfy the complainant, opposite party No.1 doctor once again tested the blood of the complainant  wherein the test results showed the complainant’s blood sample to be reactive. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant’s blood samples have been tested thrice in the opposite party No.2 hospital and the test reports appeared Hepatitis C positive all the three times. The opposite party had informed the complainant that opposite party No.1 is just a blood bank and not a diagnostic centre and advised the complainant to get a confirmatory test done from a fully equipped diagnostic laboratory. It was further submitted that Electro-Chemi-Luminescence Immuno Assay is the testing method adopted by opposite party No.2, whereas the other laboratories have adopted Nucleic Acid Test and in that event the result of the two testing methods are distinctive, a supplemental RNA/PCR test has to be conducted and the result of which will be considered to determine the infection. Whereas  in the present  case in hand, the complainant has failed to undergo the supplemental RNA/PCR test and have arrived at a conclusion that the opposite parties have erred in diagnosing the complainant’s blood samples. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.        

3.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. CW1/A,  Copy of picture of marking on paper  Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to Ex.C-7 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand opposite parties after filing written version did not put in appearance , as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.1.2017.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

6.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it is clear that in July 2016 complainant went to the opposite party No.2 for donating blood  at the behest of his close friend. It was the case of the complainant that after donation of the blood, he was informed  by the staff members of the Blood Bank Division of the hospital, that the blood donated by the complainant has received some objections from the concerned laboratory and was asked to meet opposite party No.1. However, no formal test report or receipt showing such objections was given to the complainant . The complainant then approached  opposite party No.1, who informed the complainant  that  the complainant was suffering from AIDS as well as chronic Hepatitis C Liver disease and as such he could not donate blood and the complainant was advised to consult the doctors of opposite party No.2 for treatment . Thereafter the complainant remained in sleepless nights for days. It has further been alleged that since the complainant had never any signs or symptoms of any of the aforesaid diseases, so he opted to undergo the blood tests from some reliable and renowned laboratories. The complainant got conducted the abovesaid tests from Dr. Lal Paths Lab and Kahlon Diagnostics for which he was charged exorbitantly. However, on receipts of the tests reports complainant was surprised to know that all the tests were answered in Negative, copies of the test reports account for Ex.C-2 and C-3 on record.  After receipt of the said reports , complainant immediately rushed to opposite party No.2 to show the aforesaid reports. However, opposite party No.1 started to question the validity and authenticity of the aforesaid reports and declared that the said reports are wrong and forged one. Thereafter opposite party No.1 again asked the complainant  to undergo the tests again from the laboratory of opposite party No.2 only, which the complainant got conducted from them. However, no receipt of the amount paid by the complainant for conducting these tests again was issued to the complainant .  However, this time again the test report has been answered as “Reactive”. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the test report issued by the opposite parties, complainant again got conducted these tests from SRL Diagnostics and the reports from the aforesaid laboratory  again surprised the complainant as  all the tests were answered to Negative, copy of the report of SRL Diagnostics is Ex.C-5 on record. It has been alleged by the complainant that due to the deliberate and callous acts of the opposite parties, complainant has suffered huge loss  and injury due to harassment, mental agony at the hands of the  opposite parties.  However, it was the admitted case of the opposite parties that the complainant was advised to get a confirmatory blood  test done by a fully equipped diagnostic centre, which the complainant got conducted from Dr. Lal Pathlabs and Kahlon Diagnostics and the reports were turned out to be Negative. It was only the case of the opposite parties that the methodology used by the aforesaid labs was not the same as used by the opposite parties , as such the complainant was advised to confirm the findings by getting advanced tests from an organized laboratory. 

7.       Complainant in his evidence tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A as well as copies of blood test reports conducted from Dr.Lal PathLab as well as Kahlon Diagnostics Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, copy of report of Adlakha Hospital Ex.C-4, copy of report of SRL Diagnostics Ex.C-5. As such the complainant duly proved his case .However, opposite parties did not produce any evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the complainant as  opposite parties after filing written version did not opt to put in appearance as such evidence produced by the complainant remained unrebutted .

8.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that opposite parties have acted in negligent manner by giving wrong reports again and again of such a deadly disease . It has to be noted that HIV positive as well as Hepatitis C liver disease is a dreaded disease. If a person comes to know that he  is a victim of HIV positive, he will lose interest in life and may even think of committing suicide. However, the complainant , who is a wise person has chosen to get conducted the aforesaid tests from some another renowned laboratories  for which he has to incur huge expenses . The complainant might have suffered silently until he came to know that the reports given by the opposite parties were false . Reliance in this connection can be had on  Meenakshi Vs. Manjunatha Pathology Laboratory and Anr.in Appeal No. 2324 of 2007 decided on 7.3.2008 of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , Bangalore, wherein it has been held that Medical services-Pathology Laboratory-Blood test-HIV positive report given to complainant, a pregnant woman- complainant HIV negative proved by second blood test report-deficiency in service proved, compensation of Rs. 25000/- with interest awarded.   

9.       The aforesaid authority squarely covers the facts of the present case on all its fours. Taking all these facts into consideration, we are of the  considered view that the complainant is entitled to compensation for “deficiency in service” on the part of the opposite parties.  The complaint as such is allowed accordingly.  The opposite parties are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- to the complainant  as well as  litigation expenses are assessed at Rs.3000/-. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.3.2017