DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 79 of  2023

 

Sri Vishwajeet Pandey,

S/O- Brahamadeo Pandey,

Jagdeeshpur, Ballia City,

Uttar Pradesh, 277001.

 

Present Address:-

New Capital Complex,

West Tripura, 

P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C.

Tripura- 799010. ...........Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

    

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For  the  O.P. : Sri Kushal Deb,

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. The complainant Sri Vishwajeet Pandey on advise of the Doctor booked a home visit collection of blood on 25.08.2023 with the O.P. Laboratory. Accordingly blood was collected and in the report the cholesterol level of the complainant depicted as 280mg/dL and control level was mentioned as below 200 mg/dL and the triglyceride was mentioned as 625 mg/dL  whereas control level was mentioned below 150 mg/dL. The complainant paid Rs.2,640/- for the test for which receipts was supplied by the O.P.

1.1 The complainant visited Dr. S.K. Debbarma MS, Medicine and the doctor prescribed 132 tablets for a period of 60 days with advise to undergo lipid profile tests after 2 months. 

1.2 On the 4th day of taking the medicine the complainant felt unhealthy and severe physical problems developed. Hence being suspicious the complainant again gave his blood sample to Dr. Abhijit Datta, Consultant Specialist in Pathology at Jagannath Bari Road, Agartala and undergone tests for cholesterol and triglyceride level. As per the report of Dr. Datta the cholesterol level was 159.81 mg/dL and triglyceride level was 155.89 mg/dL which means both were within control level.

1.3 Being curious about the high variation between the 2 reports the complainant again tested blood with the 3rd diagnostic centre namely DRS' Ray & Ray Diagnostics at Central Road extension, Town Pratapgarh, Agartala, wherein the cholesterol level was found 148 mg/dL and triglyceride depicted as 88 mg/dL. As such both were found under control level which ruled out the result of cholesterol and triglyceride level mentioned by the O.P. laboratory. 

 

1.4 Hence, this complaint for deficiency in service claiming compensation and other reliefs.

 

2. The complainant has submitted all documents i.e., the reports of the 3 laboratories, money receipt, doctor's prescriptions etc. 

 

3. The O.P. submitted written objection challenging the correctness and maintainability of the complaint and submitted that the case of the complainant is based on surmise and conjecture. Since the complainant had started taking medicine prescribed by doctor, it could be the reason of effecting the level of cholesterol and triglyceride, HDL and LDL in the blood. Besides, there can be other reasons of deterioration of his health condition for which the report of the O.P. can not be blamed. The medical unit of the High Court on 24.08.2023 prescribed Novastat TG 10  for a period of 15 days, subsequently the complainant under went blood testing on 25.08.2023 by the O.P. and the health condition of the complainant post medication is vague but the complainant did not explicitly detailed the nature and physical problems faced by him which raises doubt about the credibility of the complainant. Further the complainant underwent medication for 4 days before undergoing the 2nd round of testing on 13.08.2023 which can be the reason of variance in the test results in the subsequent 2 reports as Novastat TG 10 mg is widely prescribed for its known lipid lowering effect. 

3.1 The complainant has not submitted detail documents and no medical literature was submitted for which the O.Ps relied on the decision in Execution Application, Appasamy vs. Manager, Vijaya Health Centre and Ors in CC- 792 of 2018. 

3.2 The complainant has not made the other laboratory as party in this case as such, it is bad for non-joinder of parties.

3.3 Further the report of one laboratory can not be proved as conclusive proof against the report of another laboratory. 

 

4. Both the parties submitted evidence on affidavit with documents.

 

 

5. Hearing argument the following points are taken up for discussion and decision:-

 

6. Both the points are taking up together for discussion and decision.

6.1 Learned counsel of the complainant argued in the line of the documents i.e., the medical prescriptions of the Medical Unit, High Court of Tripura, Annuxure-1, the pathological report of O.P., Annexure -2, the cash memo of O.P. Annexure–3, medical prescription of Dr. S. K. Debbarma, Annexure-4, the medical report of the laboratory of Dr. Abhijit Datta and cash memo, Annexure-5, the medical report of Dr. Debabrata Ray and Manasi Saha (Ray), Annexure-6 and argued that since the cholesterol and triglyceride level were shown abnormally high the complainant was prescribed Novastat Tab 60 nos. and after taking such tablets for 4 days the complainant started feeling seriously ill and being suspicious underwent test in the laboratory of Dr. Abhijit Datta and Dr. Debabrata Ray and Manasi Saha (Ray). We find that the cholesterol level of the complainant was mentioned as 148 mg/dl and triglyceride was mentioned as 88 mg/dI, HDL 43.4 mg/dl and LDL 87 mg /dl by Dr. Debabrata Ray and Manasi Saha Ray in the report dated 31.08.2023 and in the report of the laboratory of Dr. Abhijit Datta dated 30th August, 2023 cholesterol level was mentioned as 159.81 mg/dl and triglyceride was mentioned as 155.89 mg/dl,  HDL  was mentioned as 45.84 mg/dl and LDL  82.79 mg/dl.  

6.2 What necessarily transpires is that the report of Dr. Debabrata Ray & Dr. Manasi Saha Ray i.e., Annexure-6 and report of Dr. Abhijit Datta, Annexure- 5 are more or less similar but the report of O.P. laboratory wherein cholesterol was mentioned as 280 mg/dL and triglyceride as 625 mg/dL is highly suspicious and nowhere near the report of Annexure-5 & Annexure-6. Meaning thereby, Annexure- 5 & 6 corroborate the fact of falling ill of the complainant due to high dose medication based on the wrong report of the O.P. The complaint petitioner felt uneasy and developed other physical problems taking medicines for 4 days as was prescribed on the basis of the pathological report of the O.P. Laboratory which is why being suspicious the complainant again tested blood with other 2 laboratories. The complainant is otherwise healthy and had no reason  for having such high level of cholesterol and triglycerides. Therefore, the complainant has been harmed as he suffered illness due to the absolute wrong pathological report of the O.P. laboratory and consequent medication by the doctor prescribed on the basis of absurd report of the O.P. laboratory. Therefore, the complainant's illness although escaped death by the grace of the God, comes within the meaning of Section- 2(22) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the complainant suffered illness due to high dose medication based on the wrong report of the O.P. Laboratory.

6.3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.A. Biviji Vs. Sunita and Ors reported in 2024 (2) SCC 242 was pleased to expound that medical negligence can be decided on the basis of 2 findings namely (i) either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possess or (ii) did not exercise with reasonable competence in a given case, skill which he possess. Standard of proof would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. 

6.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court was further pleased to propound that a high threshold limit must be met to ensure that the doctors are not scared of possible prosecution. On the other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice.  

6.5 In the case at hand, Dr. Sujoy Sukla Das signed the report who possessed Md. in pathology. He is the Chief of the Laboratory. Therefore, as per his medical qualification he possess requisite skill which he professed to have possess. Similar are the qualification of the other doctors of Annexure-5 and 6. However, although Annexure- 5 and 6 are more or less similar but totally differs with the medical report of the O.P. laboratory. Meaning thereby, the complainant tested his blood samples in two laboratories other than the laboratory of the O.P. only to find out the reason of his feeling uneasy and consequent illness after 4 days medication basing on the report of the O.P. laboratory. Therefore, the report of the O.P. laboratory is clear that Dr. Sujoy Sukla Das did not exercise with the reasonable competence while examining the blood samples of the complainant and at the same time the O.P. laboratory by adducing cogent evidence has not established that he had followed reasonable standards of medical practice. The O.P. laboratory has only denied the pleading of the complainant but nothing more than that. 

6.6 Meaning thereby, the O.P. laboratory was guilty of medical negligence as the concerned doctor of the O.P. Laboratory did not exercise reasonable competence and skill of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in a given profession. Consequently, the O.P. laboratory is guilty of medical negligence. 

7. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

8. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. Laboratory namely Dr. Lal PathLabs of Branch office at Bidurkarta Chowmuhani, Agartala shall pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the complainant because of its medical negligence. This amount has to be paid within 30 days from today, otherwise it shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. till the date of actual payment.

9. The case stands disposed off.

10. Supply copy of this Final Order to both the parties free of cost.   

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.