| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.558 of 28-11-2016 Decided on 30-10-2017 Harjinder Singh aged about 42 years S/o Mohinder Singh R/o Patti Salebrah, VPO Bhagta Bhai Ka, Distt. Bathinda ........Complainant Versus 1.Dr.Lal Path Labs, Eskay House, 54, Hanuman Road, New Delhi-110001, through its Incharge/M.D/D.M. 2.Dr.Lal Path Labs, S48, Bathinda Lab, 1139/A/2 Lali's Complex Opp. Bhandari Timber Store, Amrik Singh Road, Across M.A. Bathinda. 3.Dr. Lal Path Labs, S48 GC5, MC No.21460, Power House Road, Bathinda. .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President. Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member. Present:- For the complainant: Sh.Gurwinder Singh, Advocate. For opposite parties: Sh.B.L Sachdeva, Advocate. ORDER M.P Singh Pahwa, President The complainant Harjinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Dr.Lal Path Labs and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 21.3.2016, he went to check the triglycerides and other tests from opposite party No.2. After depositing amount, opposite party No.2 took the sample of blood of the complainant and checked the same. It gave the report in its slip vide lab No.227864956 dated 22.3.2016 and mentioned in its report triglycerides level of the complainant as 477 mg. After seeing the report, the complainant was shocked and for clarifying the same, he went to other laboratory (Bikaner Clinical Laboratory, Bathinda). This laboratory also checked and gave report of triglycerides level of the complainant as 170 mg. For further clarifying both the reports, he again went to laboratory of opposite party No.3, it gave the report vide lab No.226809915 dated 26.3.2016. The triglycerides level was reported as 100 mg. It is alleged that opposite parties have given wrong report to the complainant. They declared the complainant as heart patient and there is risk to his heart. It is their duty to give accurate report as this is related to the health of the patient. It is further alleged that due to the careless and negligence of opposite parties, the complainant has gone under depression and considered himself as patient of heart i.e. metabolic syndrome and he thought that there is most fat in his blood. Due to this act and conduct, he has suffered from great mental tension, agony, botheration harassment and financial loss. For this loss and incorrect report, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through their counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In the written version, opposite parties have raised the preliminary objections that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 are regional labs of opposite party No.1. The complaint is gross abuse of the process of law. It has been filed by the complainant with the sole purpose of harassing and pressurizing opposite parties to submit his unreasonable and mischievous demands. The complaint is based on false and misleading representation of facts to suit the designs of the complainant. The complaint is devoid of any material basis or merits and fails to spell out the existence of any cause-of-action against opposite parties. It is liable to be dismissed with cost on account of vexatious allegations. It is pleaded that on 21.3.2016, the complainant approached opposite party No.2 lab for lipid profile serum test. Subsequently, lipid screen test was carried out by opposite party No.2. The report dated 22.3.2016 reveled that triglycerides level of the complainant was on a high side i.e. 477 mg/dL wherein optimal situation for the same being not more than 150 mg/dL. The complainant again on 26.3.2016 being less than 7 days from the first test, went for a lipid screen and serum test at opposite party No.3 lab. The report of same was provided to the complainant wherein as per the report, his triglycerides level was 100 mg/dL. It is also pleaded that lipid screen test is done for cardiovascular risk prediction, which includes four basic parameters i.e. total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, VLDV and triglycerides. It is done in 12 hour fasting with preferred light diet on previous night blood specimen. To get accurate results for triglycerides, one has to take into consideration following physiological reasons:- (a) Avoid previous night heavy meals; (b) Observing atleast 12 hours fasting before taking sample and (c) Avoiding intake of alcohol. It is further mentioned that where two triglycerides level tests are conducted consecutively over a span of a week, it is not necessary that both the reports will be identical to each other. It is also mentioned that the note in the report dated 22.3.2016 provided as follows:- "1) Measurement in the same patent can show physiological and analytical variation. Three serial samples I week apart are recommended for Total Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HDL & LDL Cholesterol." It is further explained that such discrepancy is a regular medical anomaly that may happen due to certain unforeseen circumstances and occurrence of such an incident cannot be said to be amounting to 'medical negligence' or 'deficiency in service' as contemplated under the provisions of 'Act'. It is further case of opposite parties that when the complainant approached opposite party Nos.2 and 3 with the concern of variation in two test reports, he had concealed the material fact from opposite parties qua whether he was adequately fasting prior to the test and if dinner on the night before the test was light or whether he had taken any hypolipidemic medication. Opposite parties vide their e-mail dated 15.4.2016 informed the complainant that the variations in triglycerides levels that have been observed in both of complainant's blood reports might be due to anyone or combination of physiological reasons i.e. previous night heavy meals, observing fasting before taking of sample and inadequate time gap before collection. After receiving detailed explanation from opposite parties, the complainant with a malafide intention to extort monies from opposite parties filed the complaint on 28.11.2016. He purposefully did not file e-mail dated 15.4.2016 received from opposite parties explaining the reasons for the variation in triglycerides level alongwith the complaint just to mislead this Forum and obtain favourable order in his favour. Opposite parties have also claimed that opposite party Nos.2 and 3 have carried out triglycerides level tests and gave a report for the same to the best of their medical knowledge and expertise in the field of pathology. The samples collected for the tests have been processed correctly against well matched controls and they have performed well on the two questioned parameters on external quality assurance programme run by Biorad lab, Irvine, California, US and same eliminates any chances of error. This conduct does not reflect any 'deficiency' on the part of opposite parties as contemplated under the provisions of 'Act'. Opposite parties have also extracted some observations from reported cases, reproduction of which are not necessary at this stage. After preliminary objections, opposite parties replied on merits and controverted all the averments of the complainant and reiterated their stand as taken in the preliminary objections and detailed above. In the end, they have prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were asked to produce the evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 2.3.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopies of lab reports, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C7); photocopy of payment receipt, (Ex.C8) and closed the evidence. To rebut the claim of the complainant, opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar Sharma dated 19.4.2017, (Ex.OP1/1) and submitted written arguments. We have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the file as well as written arguments submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that it is not disputed that the complainant got tests for triglycerides on 21.3.2016 and 26.3.2016 from opposite parties. Both reports are produced on record as Ex.C2 and Ex.C6. As per report dated 22.3.2016, (Ex.C6), triglycerides was 477 mg/dL, which is on much higher side and report dated 26.3.2016, (Ex.C2), triglycerides was reported 100 mg/dL, which is within normal range. It proves that the report dated 22.3.2016 was not accurate and it was rather incorrect. The negligence on the part of opposite parties stands established. Such types of negligence amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered for this incorrect report. He was forced to get tests for triglycerides again and again and he remained under depression for about one week. Therefore, the complaint be accepted and prayer reliefs be granted. To support these submissions, learned counsel for complainant has cited 2013(2) CLT 204 Dr.Lal Path Lab P. Ltd. Vs. Vijay Jindal and others. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has reiterated his stand as taken in the written version and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant got the tests for triglycerides on different dates. This Forum can take judicial notice of the fact that reports on different dates cannot be identical. Moreover the result depends upon various factors, which includes kind of previous night meals, fasting period before taking sample and whether the patient has consumed alcohol or not. Result also varies with kind of diet taken before night from test. The negligence of opposite parties cannot be held proved only for the reason that the results of tests report of different dates are not identical. Of-course, the complainant has also revealed that he got similar tests from another lab i.e. Bikaner Clinical Laboratory, but report of that lab is not brought on record. The case law relied upon by the complainant is not applicable to the case in hand because facts of the cited case are clearly distinguishable. We have given careful consideration to these rival submissions and gone through the case law cited by learned counsel for complainant. It is not disputed that the complainant got conducted tests for triglycerides on 21.3.2016 and then on 26.3.2016. Both reports are produced on record as Ex.C2 and Ex.C6. As per report dated 22.3.2016, (Ex.C6), triglycerides was 477 mg/dL and report dated 26.3.2016, (Ex.C2), triglycerides was 100 mg/dL, but question is whether opposite parties have committed negligence in giving the report or not. The complainant has also pleaded that he got similar tests from Bikaner Clinical Laboratory, but report of that lab is not brought on record. Both tests were conducted on different dates. It is not disputed that result of triglycerides depends upon various factors, which includes fasting period before taking sample, kind of diet taken previous night or whether the patient has consumed alcohol or heavy diet on previous night. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit, which is repetition of averments of the complaint. Ex.C2 to Ex.C7 are tests reports, but Ex.C2 and Ex.C6 relates to triglycerides and remaining reports are for different purposes and no deficiency in service alleged regarding remaining tests. The net conclusion is that there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 30-10-2017 (M.P Singh Pahwa) President (Jarnail Singh) Member
| |
