Date of Filing : 08/08/2018

Date of Judgement : 18/09/2023

Sri Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

                                                                 Brief Facts

This is a case where the complainant alleged negligence on the part of the respondent/OP in respect of the findings in the pathological report obtained from the OP labs and praying for compensation etc.  According to complainant, she received a report from the OP lab on 30/01/2018 where the pathological investigation reveals creatinine serum as 0.70 and potassium serum as <7.00.  Thereafter, she visited her house physician who advised her, on the basis of the said report, to take immediate admission to any hospital for her treatment.  Immediately, complainant contacted the Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. At Panchasayar and got treated under Dr. Divanu Ghosh Roy.  After pathological investigation in the said hospital, complainant found the report of the OP lab is completely opposite to the report of the said hospital, which was within the range of normal limit.  Complainant alleged that, due to such negligence and uncared investigation, she suffered a lot and became a victim of unnecessary harassment .  Hence, this complaint.

OP lab contested this case by filing written version as well as evidence, denying the allegations of the complainant though admitting that the report was obtained by the complainant from their lab.  According to them, complainant failed to establish, by way of cogent evidence, as to any negligence as alleged in their findings in the report.

Both the parties are found to have filed their evidence, exchanged interrogatories and replies and also written arguments.

Point for determination is, if the complainant is entitled to any relief in this case?

                                                                  Findings

We have gone through the materials on record, including the documents filed by the parties.

Admittedly, the complainant conducted the required pathological test at the OP lab and obtained the report on 30/1/2018, where it was mentioned creatinine serum as 0.70 and potassium serum as <7.00 and it was further found that she was advised for clinical co-relation and re-check result on a fresh sample.

According to complainant, on receipt of the said report obtained from OP, she was advised by her house physician for immediate admission to any hospital for treatment.  She further claimed she contacted The Peerless Hospitex Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. (in short Peerless Hospital) and was treated there under Consultant Cardiologist, Dr. Divanu Ghosh Roy.  Complainant claimed that the pathalogical test report obtained from the Peerless Hospital was found to be within the range of normal limit.  So, she alleged negligence and un-cared attitude on the part of the OP lab that led her to suffering a lot and became a victim of unnecessary harrassment and mental agony etc.

What we find, that the petition of complaint is found to have no mention about whe she obtained any second test report after receipt of the report from the OP lab, though she claimed the same was done at Peerless Hospital.  However, from the documents submitted by the complainant, it is found several prescriptions and test report from different dates namely 12/1/2018, 16/2/2018, 17/2/2018 and 21/2/2018 from the Peerless Hospital were filed.  The report dt. 16/2/2018 obtained from Peerless Hospital reveals potassium serum as 4.7 mm ol/l, but we should not be forgetful that this test was conducted on 16/2/2018 i.e. after about 16 days from the date of report obtained from the OP lab.  Not only there is a substantial time gap between the said two report of the OP lab and the Peerless Hospital, but also on different samples.  In such a situation, the pertinent question arises as to how these two report can be compared in order to establish an allegation of negligence on the part of the OP lab.

This apart, we find that the complainant also submitted a prescription dt. 12/1/2018 from Peerless Hospital where the potassium level (K Plus in medical terminology) was noted to be high as <7.00 where the normal range is less than 5.00.  The said finding of the level was obtained by the complainant, not from the OP lab and that too long before the report obtained from OP lab.  So, it is clear that the report obtained from the OP lab is in line with the report obtained by the complainant from elsewhere earlier, as noted in the prescription dt. 12/1/2018.  Therefore, in this context, the subsequent findings of the potassium level at 4.7 mmol/l after a substantial period on a different sample, cannot necessarily mean, the finding in the report dt. 30/1/2018 from the OP is an erroneous one or that the said report was prepared in a negligent manner following the standard medical guidelines.

Be it noted, mere allegation of negligence is not suffice.  It has to be established with cogent evidence and not presumed (Ref. 199 CTJ644 C.P. NCDCRC) Kanhaya Kumar Singh vs Park Medicare and Research Centre).

Thus, having gone through the entire materials on record, we are of the opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish her allegations against the OP.  Therefore, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is

                                            ORDERED

That the instant complaint case being No. CC/502/2018 is dismissed on contest.  No order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

President