Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

1.       The complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant was having pain in her abdomen and he approached Opposite Party No.1 doctor for consultation and medical treatment. Opposite Party No.1 charged his consultancy fee from the complainant. The complainant was advised to go through the ultrasonography of whole abdomen by Opposite Party No.1. At the time of recommendation of ultra sonography, Opposite Party No.1 recommended and insisted the complainant to approach the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the test as described by the Opposite Party No.1 and on the recommendation of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant approached Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the ultrasonography and got the ultrasonography of whole abdomen from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 charged Rs.1500/- as fee, but did not issue any receipt of the same. The report was issued on 23.4.2016 mentioning that ‘Uterus is normal in size, shape and echopattern. A cystic, mass with internal echoes and fine septae measuring 30mm seen in the left adnexal region”/ As  per the report issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, it is stated that uterus of the complainant is infected. The complainant alongwith her husband approached Opposite Party No.1 and showed her report issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that there is severe infection in the stomach of the complainant and the complainant has to go under long medical treatment and prescribed certain medicines and injections for her treatment. On the advise of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant started the treatment from Opposite Party No.1 w.e.f. 24.4.2016. The complainant so many times visited the clinic of Opposite Party No.1 as per the directions and advise of Opposite Party No.1 and on each occasion, the complainant has to pay fee as well as charges for costly medicines given by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. In all, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1.  After getting the treatment from Opposite Party No.1, the condition of the complainant was not improved. Each time, the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1 with her husband and when there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant, the husband of the complainant alongwith complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and enquired about the nature of ailment. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that she has problem in the uterus. Opposite Party No.1 also told to the complainant and her husband that he is treating the complainant to get her uterus right. The complainant and her husband after listening these words from the mouth of Opposite Party No.1 became astonished. Complainant came to know that Opposite Party No.1 in connivance with 23 intentionally only to extract money by illegal means have propounded the false and frivolous ultrasonography report. Hence, the complainant has to undergo wrong medical treatment  which caused huge mental as well as physical pain to the complainant at the hands of Opposite Parties. On hearing about the nature of medical ailment, the complainant without telling Opposite Party No.1 undergo another ultrasonography from Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Amritsar on 1.6.2016 in which ultrasonography report clearly stated that  “The uterus is not visualized in pelvis”. The report of Nijjar Scan & diagnostic Centre, Amritsar is completely contradictory to the report submitted by 23. To confirm that which report is correct, the complainant again got conducted and approached the another clinic namely Bharat Xray Clinic and clinical laboratory, Amritsar on 21.6.2016 and in that report, it is clearly stated that the uterus is not visualized. It means that the report given by 23 is wrong and not based on actual and factual condition of the complainant. The report given by 23 is result of connivance  with Opposite Party No.1 and same is propounded one and not based on actual and factual condition and same has been propounded at the instance of Opposite Party No.1 just to extract more money from the complainant which is clearly negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay damages and compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- to the complainant. Opposite Parties is also liable to pay Rs.20,000/- for medical treatment incurred by the complainant.  In all, the Opposite Parties are  jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1 lacs to the complainant as damages and compensation to the complainant for causing mental and physical harassment and for medical negligence and also includes entire medical expenses given by the complainant to the Opposite Parties. 

b)      Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to pay complete cost of the present litigation.

c)       the complainant may kindly be awarded any other relief to which she is found legally entitled to under the law, equity and justice.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1, hence Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded  against exparte.

3.       Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  joint written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and is not sustainable in the eyes of law and has been filed without any justified reason against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 just to harass, defame and extort illegal sum from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Actual facts are that  patient was referred to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by Anmol Clinic as mentioned in the USG report dated 23.04.2016. The patient was charged only Rs.300/- on concessional rate. The patient was informed about the typographical error. The computer operator could not note  down, some part of the report, which the Opposite Party No.3 told that the uterus is not visualised. It was a copy paste error. No infection can occur because of USG done from outside of the abdomen, which is a non invasive procedure. This is only wrong imagination and wrong assumption of the complainant to extract money from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by abuse of process of the law. The USG was performed diligently by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and there was no error in performing USG. But for a typographical error for which the patient was also informed, that there is a typographical error. Everything the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 has done was done diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 say there was no negligence atleast from their side. On merits, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 took the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections.    Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       At the stage of evidence,  Sh.Rajinder Nayyar, Advocate appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 and filed application for joining the proceedings at this stage and filed memo of appearance on behalf of Opposite Party No.4. It is well settled principle of law that a party can join the proceedings at any stage. As such, in the interest of justice, Opposite Party No.4 is allowed to join the proceedings at this stage i.e. at the stage of evidence of Opposite Parties.

5.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C1  to Ex.C4  and closed his evidence.

6.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Dr.Vijay Bhalla Ex.OP2,3/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.             OP2,3/2 to To Ex.2,3/6 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Gurdeep Singh, Senior Divisional Manager Ex.OP4/1 and copy of policy Ex.OP4/2 and closed the evidence.  

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

8.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that  the complainant was having pain in her abdomen and he approached Opposite Party No.1 doctor for consultation and medical treatment. Opposite Party No.1 charged his consultancy fee from the complainant. The complainant was advised to go through the ultrasonography of whole abdomen by Opposite Party No.1. At the time of recommendation of ultra sonography, Opposite Party No.1 recommended and insisted the complainant to approach the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the test as described by the Opposite Party No.1 and on the recommendation of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant approached Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 for the ultrasonography and got the ultrasonography of whole abdomen from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 charged Rs.1500/- as fee, but did not issue any receipt of the same. The report was issued on 23.4.2016 mentioning that ‘Uterus is normal in size, shape and echopattern. A cystic, mass with internal echoes and fine septae measuring 30mm seen in the left adnexal region”/ As  per the report issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, it is stated that uterus of the complainant is infected. The complainant alongwith her husband approached Opposite Party No.1 and showed her report issued by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that there is severe infection in the stomach of the complainant and the complainant has to go under long medical treatment and prescribed certain medicines and injections for her treatment. On the advise of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant started the treatment from Opposite Party No.1 w.e.f. 24.4.2016. The complainant so many times visited the clinic of Opposite Party No.1 as per the directions and advise of Opposite Party No.1 and on each occasion, the complainant has to pay fee as well as charges for costly medicines given by Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. In all, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to the Opposite Party No.1.  After getting the treatment from Opposite Party No.1, the condition of the complainant was not improved. Each time, the complainant visited the Opposite Party No.1 with her husband and when there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant, the husband of the complainant alongwith complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and enquired about the nature of ailment. Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that she has problem in the uterus. Opposite Party No.1 also told to the complainant and her husband that he is treating the complainant to get her uterus right. The complainant and her husband after listening these words from the mouth of Opposite Party No.1 became astonished. Complainant came to know that Opposite Party No.1 in connivance with 23 intentionally only to extract money by illegal means have propounded the false and frivolous ultrasonography report. Hence, the complainant has to undergo wrong medical treatment  which caused huge mental as well as physical pain to the complainant at the hands of Opposite Parties. On hearing about the nature of medical ailment, the complainant without telling Opposite Party No.1 undergo another ultrasonography from Nijjar Scan and Diagnostic Centre, Amritsar on 1.6.2016 in which ultrasonography report clearly stated that  “The uterus is not visualized in pelvis”. The report of Nijjar Scan & diagnostic Centre, Amritsar is completely contradictory to the report submitted by 23. To confirm that which report is correct, the complainant again got conducted and approached the another clinic namely Bharat Xray Clinic and clinical laboratory, Amritsar on 21.6.2016 and in that report, it is clearly stated that the uterus is not visualized. It means that the report given by 23 is wrong and not based on actual and factual condition of the complainant. The report given by 23 is result of connivance  with Opposite Party No.1 and same is propounded one and not based on actual and factual condition and same has been propounded at the instance of Opposite Party No.1 just to extract more money from the complainant which is clearly negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

9.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that  the patient was referred to Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by Anmol Clinic as mentioned in the USG report dated 23.04.2016. The patient was charged only Rs.300/- on concessional rate. The patient was informed about the typographical error. The computer operator could not note  down, some part of the report, which the Opposite Party No.3 told that the uterus is not visualised. It was a copy paste error. No infection can occur because of USG done from outside of the abdomen, which is a non invasive procedure. This is only wrong imagination and wrong assumption of the complainant to extract money from Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 by abuse of process of the law. The USG was performed diligently by the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 and there was no error in performing USG. But for a typographical error for which the patient was also informed, that there is a typographical error. Everything the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 has done was done diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 say there was no negligence atleast from their side.

10.     The main ground of deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  averred by the complainant is that due to wrong  test report given by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  in connivance with Opposite Party No.1, the complainant suffered physical as well as financial loss at the hands of the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3. On the other hand,  in its written version as well as in  duly sworn affidavit of Dr.Vijay Bhalla Ex.OP2,3/1 the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have specifically admitted that  the patient was informed about the typographical error. The computer operator could not note  down, some part of the report, which the Opposite Party No.3 told that the uterus is not visualised. It was a copy paste error. No infection can occur because of USG done from outside of the abdomen, which is a non invasive procedure. It proves that the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  have themselves admitted the wrong test report given by them in respect of complainant and charged the fee of Rs.300/- from the complainant.  In this way, there is definitely deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3.

11.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the complainant. The Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  are also directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) in the Consumer Legal Aid Account. Opposite Parties No.2 and 3  are also directed to pay to the complainant   Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) as litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum.     Copies of the order 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