Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/252/2018

A.R.Palaniappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.S.Zahir Hussain,A.L.Haramain Diagostic Centre - Opp.Party(s)

P.L.Annamalai

14 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                   Complaint presented on  :20.09.2010

                                                                    Date of disposal             :14.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.252/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 14^th  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

 

AR.Palaniappan,

S/o.Arunachalam,

Opposite to school

Konapet, Pudukottai District.                                                   …..Complainant

 

 ..Vs..

 

1.       Dr.S.Zahir Hussain,

          AL.Haramain Diagnostic Centre

          Hamid Building, 3^rd floor,

          251/91, Anna salai,

          Chennai-600 006.

2.       Dr.G.Rangarajan,

          Al Saudi Clinical service,

          City Hospital,

          26, Sardar Patel Road,

          2^nd floor, Adyar,

          Chennai 600 020.

                                                                                       …. Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.Palaniappan

 

Counsel for  1^st and 2^nd opposite party      : M/s.Gowri

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,     : PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and negligence and to pay damages at Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pay damages at Rs.17,00,000/- towards loss caused due to loss of employment contract.

          This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No. 353/2010.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.252/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant was called for further employment of contract of work in Saudi Arabia assuring a salary of Rs.1,80,000/-per month and the said company through the local manpower agent namely Asia power overseas employment service from Mumbai sent an Email on 31.01.2010 and 22.02.2010 directing the complainant to complete the medical formalities by submitting the medical report, photos etc., The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for medical checkup on 03.02.2010.  The 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.2,250/- for medical check up. The complainant paid the same.  However the 1^st opposite party failed to give the cash bill for this payment, inspite of demanded by the complainant made to the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant’s blood sample was collected.  The blood test report was issued on 04.02.2010 stating: ‘ stamp- VDRL – reacting (1:4 positive) and TPHA-positive (1:160) which was duly signed by Dr.N.Jayalakshmi Devi, pathologist. On a  diagnosis carried out wrongly and negligently, the 1^st opposite party gave its medical report to the complainant stating that the complainant was affected with a disease called ‘VENERAL DISEASE’ and the complainant was an infected person.  To his utter shock the complainant wanted to verify whether the report was false for he is sure that he is not affected by any disease much less veneral disease, approached Meenakshi Mission Hospital & Research centre Madurai on 05.02.20210.  After a thorough medical check up they gave an report/opinion that the complainant is not affected by any disease much less the veneral disease.  The complainant paid Rs.700/- as test fee.  Further the complainant went to another clinical called Udhayam clinical laboratory at Thirumayam and test were conducted by it on 06.02.2010  The result were given stating that  ‘VDRL:non reactive TPHA: Negative’.  After collecting all aforesaid reports to met the 1^st opposite party on 11.02.2010.  He instructed the complainant to go to the 2^nd opposite party. Accordingly the complainant met the 2^nd opposite party on the same day.  The 2^nd opposite party collected the complainant’s blood sample and give report on 12.02.2010 and paid Rs.300/- towards charges. The 2^nd opposite party report stating ‘SEROLOGY VDRL REACTIVE & TPHA POSITIVE’.  Thus the 2^nd opposite party concurred with the report of 1^st opposite party.  The complainant produced all the medical report given by the 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party did not agree with the other reports and he stated that would agree with the medical report of the 2^nd opposite party and he prescribed medicine for alleged disease.  Further the complainant has no option other than rushing to the Govt. Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai who are the specialists in dealing with the veneral disease and other allied disease on 17.02.2010.  They tested the complainant thoroughly and gave medical opinion/report stating that the complainant is hale and healthy and that he is not affected by any disease much less veneral disease.  The complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party has no facilities to test the blood of a person who is affected by veneral disease. Further he is given to understand that the blood sample of the person affected with veneral disease are collected by a separate laboratory where the other blood samples could not have been mingled. Further stated that he was not affected with veneral disease and thereafter the 1^st opposite party sent medical report  directly to the recruitment agent and hence the complainant suspected foul play in the process of medical examination and 1^st opposite party colluded with 2^nd opposite party and thereby committed unfair trade practice and thereby prevented the complainant work contract at Saudi Arabia and further contended that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has no facilities to test the blood of a person who is affected with veneral disease and further contended that the opposite parties have not tested his blood with due care and skill which amount to deficiency in service and therefore claimed compensation and damages for loss of employment contract. 

 2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF.

          The opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 1^st  opposite party is the authorized diagnostic center for G.C.C. countries and Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and further contended it is not aware of the work contract of the complainant and about the details of the salary alleged in the complaint and further stated that as per the guidelines on 03.02.2010 the complainant under went various tests including blood test Xray Urine test and his serology reported that he was VDRL reactive and TPHA positive and to confirm the same and his blood sample was tested again and the result was the same and his X-ray of chest showed some discrepancy and he was advised CT chest and further contended that later 06.02.2010 the complainant informed over phone about test report taken by him on 05.02.2010 and 06.02.2010 at laboratories outside Chennai were non reactive but  however the complainant has not produced the alleged report to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the complainants blood was tested in high tech diagnostic center on 06.02.2010 and also samples sent to Marwa Medicare on 08.02.2010 and later to Mariam Diagnostic center which all gave VDRL reactive and TPHA positive reports and all those test were done by the 1^st opposite party were done by the free of cost and later he was referred to 2^nd opposite party who is also one of the GCC authorized diagnostic center which also gave a positive report for VDRL and TPHA and stated that all GCC panel medical centres follow strict protocol with regard to the identity of the person before undergoing test and it is evident that the medical certificate issued by the other clinics do not have verification of identity and stated that all tests were done as per the guidelines and with necessary scare and skill and denied the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and further stated that the complainant after coming to know that he was medically unfit due to his problem in his medical report to enrich himself has made false allegations to defame and spoil the reputation of the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY 2^nd   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF.

          The opposite party deny each and every averment made by the complainant is false and put the complainant in to strict proof of the same.  The 2^nd opposite party is a repudiated medical professional and authorized medical officer for Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The 2^nd opposite party stated that in para.1, he is not aware of the details relating to the complainant’s previous employment and the same is not a matter of concern to him. The 2^nd opposite party stated that the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party centre on 11.02.2010 and like any other patient had his blood tested at the center.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that even in the test report issued by the 2^nd opposite party’s centre the reference is noted as self. The 2^nd opposite party was not aware of any details relating to his employment or previous medical check ups, therefore all the allegations are false.  The 2^nd opposite party stated that the blood test report taken in the 2^nd opposite party’s diagnostic center reported reactive for VDRL and TPHA positive. The 2^nd opposite party did not have a separate laboratory to carry out VDRL test is an allegation made out of ignorance.  VDRL is a non specific non treponemal assay that detects antibodies against cardiolipin.  The test is used for screening purposes and for monitoring treatment.  VDRL is a qualitative test procedure were the serum is placed on a slide and the antigen is placed on the serum and observed for carbon particle clumping.  If the result shows medium and large aggregates then it will be classified as reactive.  This is a simple test procedure and does not require a separate laboratory.  The complainant is put to strict proof of further averments that all other clinics were the complainant has been tested had a separate laboratory for testing the venereal diseases sample. The further allegation that the opposite parties colluded together to deny the contract of employment to the complainant is an allegation borne out the complainants fertile imagination. The fact remains that the complainant tested VDRL reactive and as per the guidelines issued by the Executive board of the health minister’s council for GCC states a candidate who has tested VDRL positive and TPHA positive is considered unfit for working in GCC countries.  The 2^nd opposite party cannot be held liable for the complainant’s report being reactive VDRL and TPHA positive and deny the averments contrary to the same in the complaint and the 2^nd opposite party was not aware of the complainants previous test reports and stated that there is no deficiency in service on his part.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part opposite parties 1 and 2 as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the complaint.     If, so to what extent?

The complainant filed proof affidavit and also documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked. The  opposite parties have filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 documents were marked.

5. POINT NO :1

                   The complainant was called for further employment of contract of work in Saudi Arabia assuring a salary of Rs.1,80,000/-per month and the said company through the local manpower agent namely Asia power overseas employment service from Mumbai sent an Email on 31.01.2010 and 22.02.2010 directing the complainant to complete the medical formalities by submitting the medical report, photos etc., and as per the said direction the complainant went to medical checkup to the 1^st opposite party on 03.02.2010 after paying necessary amount and his blood sample was collected and report was issued on 04.02.2010 stating  VDRL reactive-positive and TPHA –positive and as per the report a complainant was infected with veneral disease which shocked the complainant.  He wanted to verify whether the result was correct and hence approach meenakshi mission hospital  madurai on 05.02.2010 which gave a report that he is no affected with veneral disease again he went to another laboratory called Udhayam laboratory at Tirumayam which gave a report on 06.02.2010 that VDRL non reactive TPHA negative and after collecting the said report he met with 1^st opposite party on 11.02.2010 and he was referred to 2^nd opposite party which gave a medical report on 12.02.2010 stating VDRL reactive TPHA positive and when the complainant produced the reports from Madurai and Tirumayam laboratory the 1^st opposite party did not agree with the other reports thereafter the complainant went to Govt.Rajaji hosipital Madurai which gave report on 17.02.2010 stating that he was not affected with veneral disease and thereafter the 1^st opposite party sent medical report  directly to the recruitment agent and hence the complainant suspected foul play in the process of medical examination and 1^st opposite party colluded with 2^nd opposite party and thereby committed unfair trade practice and thereby prevented the complainant work contract at Saudi Arabia and further contended that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party has no facilities to test the blood of a person who is affected with veneral disease and further contended that the opposite parties have not tested his blood with due care and skill which amount to deficiency in service and therefore claimed compensation and damages for loss of employment contract. 

          6. But it was contended by the 1^st opposite party it is the authorized diagnostic center for GCC countries and royal kingdom of Saudi Arabia and strictly following the rules and regulations and it is fully equipped with advanced medical instrument for conducting laboratory test and further contended it is not aware of the work contract of the complainant and about the details of the salary alleged in the complaint and further stated that as per the guidelines on 03.02.2010 the complainant under went various tests including blood test X-ray Urine test and his serology reported that he was VDRL reactive and TPHA positive and to confirm the same and his blood sample was tested again and the result was the same and his X-ray of chest showed some discrepancy and he was advised CT chest and further contended that later 06.02.2010 the complainant informed over phone about test report taken by him on 05.02.2010 and 06.02.2010 at laboratories outside Chennai were non reactive but  however the complainant has not produced the alleged report to the 1^st opposite party and thereafter the complainants blood was tested in high tech diagnostic center on 06.02.2010 and also samples sent to Marwa Medicare on 08.02.2010 and later to Mariam Diagnostic center which all gave VDRL reactive and TPHA positive reports and all those test were done by the 1^st opposite party were done by the free of cost and later he was referred to 2^nd opposite party who is also one of the GCC authorized diagnostic center which also gave a positive report for VDRL and TPHA and stated that all GCC panel medical centers follow strict protocol with regard to the identity of the person before undergoing test and it is evident that the medical certificate issued by the other clinics do not have verification of identity and stated that all tests were done as per the guidelines and with necessary scare and skill and denied the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party and further stated that the complainant after coming to know that he was medically unfit due to his problem in his medical report to enrich himself has made false allegations to defame and spoil the reputation of the 1^st opposite party.

          7. The 2^nd opposite party also contended that they have no motive or reason to deny his employment and as per the GCC guidelines his blood sample was tested and found to be VDRL reactive and TPHA positive and deny the averments contrary to the same in the complaint and the 2^nd opposite party was not aware of the complainants previous test reports and stated that there is no deficiency in service on his part.

          8. It is found from Ex.A1 and A2 that the complainant was offered with employment card at Saudi Arabia and he was required to produce medical report along with photos and passports under Ex.A3 by the agent Asia Power employment services on 02.02.2010 and accordingly he underwent test at 1st opposite party on 03.02.2010 where his serology report shown VDRL reactive and TPHA positive and Ex.A5 is the list of authorized clinic and doctor by the GCC.  It is found from Ex.A6 the test report of Meenakshi Misson Hospital showed VDRL non  reactive and TPHA non reactive on 05.02.2010 but this report does not contain identity details with photo of the person tested.  But on the otherhand in the report given on 17.04.2010 by Meenakshi Mission Hospital the identity details were found.  Similarly Ex.A7 report of Udhayam Laboratory does not contain identity of the person tested even the report issued by Govt. Rajaji Hosital Madurai non 17.02.2010 also doesnot contain the identity details along with photo of the person tested.  Hence no evidentiary value can be placed upon Ex.A6 , A7 and A11.  At the same time the 1st opposite party cannot claim immunity from legal proceeding by virtue of Ex.B1 consent form.  It is found from Ex.B2 to B9 that the complainant was tested Positive for TPHA and reactive for VDRL by the GCC recognized laboratories which were all located at Chennai and indeed the Hightech diagnostic center is one of a reputed laboratory.  It is found that the 1st opposite party has done blood analysis and also has taken X-ray and Urine test and Ex.B10 is the guidelines issued GCC Ex.B11 is the medical literature for VDRL test.  It is found from Ex.B10 that the persons infected with veneral diseases were unfit to work in GCC countries.  It is found from the medical literature that VDRL test does not require any specialist apparatus to determine the presence of the disease.  Further the test is done with the patients serum placed in a  slide  and by following the methods as found in Ex.A11. Though the complainant suspected foul play among 1st and 2nd opposite party who have given positive report there is absolutely no motive or enemity between the complainant and opposite party for giving a false medical report thereby preventing his work contract in abroad.  There is no evidence to show that the opposite parties colluded together and gave a false medical report as alleged by the complainant but at the same time the test reports which were taken elsewhere from Chennai shown negative report.  If the complainant is  aggrieved over such contradiction in the report the complainant ought to have immediately approached renowned government organization like Kings Institute Guindy or any other well known laboratory for testing his blood sample which was not done by him.  It is found that after filing of this complaint in September 2010 the complainant has filed CMP 236/2013 for sending his blood sample for testing the same by Tamilnadu State Aids Control Society which was dismissed by this commission on 27.08.2013 as belated against which R.P. 48/2013 was filed by the complainant before SCDRC which was also dismissed on 28.02.2014 which has become final. Therefore the complainant has not chosen to get a correct report with regard to his blood sample  by sending the same to a recognized institute or has not chosen to obtain a opinion on his blood report from an expert. Hence the complainant is not entitled to allege deficiency inservice and unfair trade practice upon the opposite party for the variations in the test report obtained by him.  The decision relied upon by the complainant in CC.12/2006 of SCDRC Chennai Dated 18.10.2013 and IV(2007) CPJ 157(NC) are not applicable to the facts of the present case.  The opposite party has relied upon a decision report in 2012(4) CPR 137(NC).  The complainant failed to prove that the test report sent by 1^st opposite party directly to the recruiting agent neither of the opposite parties knew the complainant  before he approached him and there is no motive or reason to deny his employment.  The complainant failed to prove that the report given by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party were false one.  The test report which were marked as Ex.A6,A7 and A11 cannot be taken as a conclusive valid report in the absence of testing his blood sample by a recognized institute as stated above and hence there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Point no.1 is answered accordingly. 

9. Point No.2.

            Based on findings given to the Point.No.1 since there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to the relief of compensation or for damages towards mental agony and loss of employment as claimed in the complaint.  Point no.2 answered accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14^thday of September 2022.

 

MEMBER – I              MEMBER – II                                  PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	31.01.2010	E-mail from Asia Manpower agent Bombay.
Ex.A2	31.01.2010	Employment contract.
Ex.A3	02.02.2010	E-mail from Asia Manpower agent.
Ex.A4	03.02.2010	Test report of 1st opposite party.
Ex.A5	05.02.2010	List of panel doctors issued by Asia Manpower.
Ex.A6	06.02.2010	Test report of Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai.
Ex.A7	06.02.2010	Test report of Udhayam clinical lab.
Ex.A8	11.02.2010	1st opposite party referred to 2nd opposite party for blood test.
Ex.A9	12.02.2010	2nd opposite party test report.
Ex.A10	12.02.2010	Prescription issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A11	17.02.2010	Test report issued by Govt.Rajaji General hospital Madurai.
Ex.A12	10.03.2010	Legal notice with acknowledgement cards.
Ex.A13	25.03.2010	Reply notice issued by the opposite parties.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:      

Ex.B1		Consent form.
Ex.B2		Serology report Al Haramain
Ex.B3		Serology report-Mariam
Ex.B4		Serology report-Marwa Medicare
Ex.B5		Serology Report-hitech Diagnostic.
Ex.B6		Serology report-Citi Hospital
Ex.B7		Laboratory report-Al Haramain.
Ex.B8		Xray report-Al Haramain
Ex.B9		Hi tech diagnostic-receipt.
Ex.B10		Guidelines issued by executive council for GCC states.
Ex.B11		VDRL Test-Medical literature.

 

 

MEMBER – I              MEMBER – II                                  PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C.No.252/2018, Dated:14.09.2022 Order Pronounced, In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.     Member-I    Member-II    President