DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.260 of 2015
Date of institution: 03.06.2015 Date of decision : 22.03.2017
Dr. Kewal Kumar Bansal S/o Baij Nath R/O H.No.B III 1420 Tulsi Ram Street near OBC Bank Sri Mukatsar Sahib, Tehsil & District Sri Mukatsar Sahib.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. IVY Hospital Super Specialty Health Care, Sector 71, Mohali through its Medical Superintendent.
2. IVY Hospital Super Speciality Heath Care, Sector 71 through its Managing Director.
3. Dr. Ravinder Goyal (Gastroenterology) IVY Hospital Sector 71, Mohali.
4. Dr. Ritu, Head Pathology, IVY Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali.
5. Polo Labs Private Limited having Registered Office at SCO 245 Sector 16-A, Chandigarh through its Pathologist.
…..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum
Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member
Present : Sh. Sukhman Singh, counsel for the complainant. Sh. Inderdeep Singh, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.
Complainant Dr. Kewal Kumar Bansal has filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The complainant was having stool problem and he consulted OP No.3 in OPD on 19.02.2015, vide ID No.115877, who advised for colonoscopic polypectomy. Accordingly the complainant was admitted on 20.02.2015 with OP No.1, for colonoscopic polypectomy under the consultation of OP No.3. The procedure was conducted and two Polyps were diagnosed in Rectal Area. One Polyp was diagnosed at Sigmoid Colon and the other at Rectal Area. OP No.3 advised the complainant that there is necessity of removing these polyps as they can be cancerous or they can change into malignant later on in this advanced age group. He was also advised to get the biopsy done after removal of polyps. Due to fear of Cancer or any other disease, the complainant got admitted with OP No.1 for treatment and was given registration ID as VHID 115877 and was polypectomy operated. After removal of both the polyps, the samples were put in separate labeled containers naming the polyps specifically from where they were removed and were sent to pathological lab for its Biopsy report. Thereafter on 28.02.2015 the complainant inquired about the biopsy report of both the samples but only report of Sigmoid Colon was given to the complainant. The Pathologist verbally told the complainant that they have lost the other biopsy container of Rectal Area and they could not find out the same. On the same day i.e. 28.02.2015 the complainant complained the matter to Medical Superintendent of IVY Hospital in writing by stating the whole facts. But OP No.1 & 2 failed to respond to the said complaint. Then on 11.03.2015 the complainant again referring the letter dated 28.02.2015 asked about the matter but the OPs failed to reply to the same. Then on 15.04.2015 the complainant also sent two emails to the OPs. Thereafter on 28.04.2015 the complainant received an email from the OPs that the second biopsy sample is found and processed. The tissue is very tiny and is consumed during process. No separate report was given to the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see the report of pathologist on email itself. Thereafter on 30.04.2015 the complainant wrote application to OP No.1 to provide all the documents of the complainant and the same were received vide letter dated 11.05.2015. The complainant was shocked to see that the report of Rectal Polyp was in the documents, which were provided to the complainant on his request and the date of report was mentioned as 03.03.2015, which clearly shows that the report is antedated document. Moreover, the specimen number on report is written as S-242A/15, which also caste the shadow of doubt of unfair trade practices. The act and conduct of the OPs, despite various visits and requests, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay Rs.8 Lakhs as compensation on account of gross negligence and Rs.2 lakhs on account of mental tension agony and depression suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The complaint is contested by the OPs. In reply to the complaint OPs No.1 to 4 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, unwarranted and not maintainable against the OPs; the present complaint is flagrant abuse of the process of law and the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As regards to the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that OP No.5 received two containers labeled as rectal and sigmoid colon biopsies in two separate containers pertaining to complainant. The usual processing and reporting of sample labeled sigmoid colon biopsy (Histopath No.S-242/15) was done and report was generated on 28.02.2015. The non-processing of the second sample came to Lab's notice while handling the report to Dr. Ravinder Goyal, OP No.3, The other biopsy specimen container(Rectal Biopsy) went unnoticed due to an advertent oversight and was not processed for few days. After locating the second sample in the lab on 01.03.2015, the sample was duly processed. On processing the sample, a very tiny tissue was recovered and complete processing was done as per standard protocol. It is an accepted practice that if the size of tissue is tiny, there are high chances of it getting consumed in the processing/block cutting. As per protocol, a report was generated on 03.03.2015 after processing the sample. It is well recognized fact that tiny tissue bits received may get consumed during processing and no opinion is possible in such cases. It is further stated that 1st report of Sigmoid Biopsy under label number S-242/15 was processed and released earlier, whereas the second container labeled under serial number S-242A/15 as Rectal Biopsy was processed and reported later. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. In reply to the complaint, OP No.5 also reiterated the same facts as stated by OPs No.1 to 4 in their reply.
4. In order to prove the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, copies of discharge summary Ex. C-1, original colonoscopy polypectomy report dated 20.02.2015 Ex. C-2, original report dated 28.02.2015 Ex.C-3, letter dated 28.02.2015 Ex. C-4, letter dated 11.03.2015 Ex. C-5, copies of emails Ex.C-6 to C-8, letter dated 30.04.2015 Ex. C-9, original reply dated 11.05.2015 Ex. C-10, original report dated 03.03.2015 Ex. C-11 and original bill Ex. C-12, again affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/2 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal OPs No.1 to 4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajinder K. Suri Ex. OP-4/1 and closed the evidence. OP No.5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravinder Minhas authorised person of OP No.5 Ex. OP-5 and closed the evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that non submission of report of the second sample of biopsy specimen container (Rectal Biopsy) by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. At the time of collecting sample, the OPs had not informed the complainant that the size of tissue is tiny and that there are high chances of it getting consumed in the processing/block cutting.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OPs has argued that OP No.5 is a renowned lab and is NABL accredited Lab. It follows best practices and processes for efficient and accurate processing of samples. He has further argued that after locating the second sample and on processing the same a very tinny tissue was recovered. The report was generated on 03.03.2015 and the information was given to Dr. Vishal Bansal son of the complainant who was working as Medical Superintendent of Ivy Hospital at that time.
7. We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties and heard their oral submissions. It is evident from report dated 03.03.2015 Ex.C-11 that the complainant has duly received report of biopsy Labeled Rectal Polyp. Ex.C-11 shows that the sample was collected on 20.02.2015 and the report was given on 03.03.2015 by the OPs. The complainant has not stated that due to late submission of report by the OPs he has suffered any medical complication. The delay in submission of report was occurred due to the fact that the biopsy specimen container (Rectal Biopsy) went unnoticed due to an advertent oversight and was not processed for few days. After location of the sample in the lab on 01.03.2015 the report was generated on 03.03.2015 and time to time information was provided to Dr. Vishal Bansal, son of the complainant who was working as Medical Superintendent of Ivy Hospital at that time. The complainant has not stated that due to late submission of report by the OPs he had suffered any medical complication. Thus, we hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
9. In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 22.03.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
