SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

Complaint for realization of compensation costs. Etc.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant is a kidney and cardiac patient.  His kidney was transplanted on 12.5.04.  He was doing regularly monthly checkup  of the creatinine level of his blood for which he approached the opp.party on 20.12.2004  and the result  on that day showed that the level of creatinine  was 1.3. mg/dl.  The complainant approached the opp.party again on 9.1.2005  for monthly blood tests and the result showed that the percentage of creatinine  level was 2.0 mg/dl which is much higher than the maximum permissible level.   This  result has caused mental agony  to the complainant and his physical condition  because  worse and he was immediately rushed to Thiruvananthapuram for consulting  his doctor Ramadas Pisharadi.  As per his doctors advise his blood  was again  tested  at the Medivision scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram and the creatinine level was found to be 1.3 mg/dl.   The  complainant on the same day approached the opp.party in the  evening for blood test and the result showed that the creatinine level was 1.6 mg/dl   These two results  will show that the opp.party’s laboratory staff conducted  blood test without care and caution which has caused mental agony  and financial  loss to the complainant.   When the complainant approached the opp.party  her subordinates  ill treated  and threatened him which has also caused shock, mental and physical pain to the complainant.  Hence the complaint

          The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  There is no consumer dispute between the parties.  It is admitted that the complainant approached the opp.party for regular monthly check up   for blood.   The complainant came to the opp.party’s hospital  on 9.1.2005 at 9.15 a.m. and his blood was taken for creatinine test.   The result of the test was 2.0 mg/dl.  Since the patient was a kidney patient  and as the result was high, the opp.party repeated the test and then also the result  was the same. The patient again  came to the opp.party’s hospital at 5.45 p.m.  on the same day and  requested for another blood test.  The percentage of creatinine  as per the test conducted in the evening was 1.6 mg/dl. The complainant on 10.1.2005  came to the hospital again and said that the result of his blood test conducted at  medivision scan  and diagnostic research centre, Thiruvananthapuram showed in that the creatinine  level was 1.3mgsl. and  the complainant threatened the opp.party  saying  that the result of their  institution was  wrong.  The level of serum creatinine is not static and  it is liable to be varied even in a normal person with  variation of food in take etc.  The opp.party   had given true and correct results.  The allegation that the result given by the opp.party caused mental agony and his physical condition became worse are all wild and baseless.   The allegation that  the difference in the results of the 2 tests conducted by the opp.party shows that they had conducted the tests without care and caution  and that has caused mental and financial agony to him and also danger to the life of the complainant are all false and hence denied.  The opp.party  never illtreated or threatened the complaint .   The complainant has no cause action against the opp.party.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and therefore the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext. P1 to P9 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined.  Ext. D1 and D2 are marked.

Points:

There is no dispute that the original complainant is a Kidney patient and that he had gone to the opp.party hospital for blood tests to ascertain the creatinine level.  Ext.P2 is the tests report issued by the opp.party after conducting blood tests and according to the complainant the percentage shown therein is exorbitant and because of the result he had to rush to Thiruvananthapuram to meet his doctor who after examining him advised blood test at Medivision Scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.   Accordingly he had tested his blood in the above Laboratory and it was found that the creatinine level in his blood was 1.3 mg/dl which is within normal range.   Again after returning from Thiruvananthapuram on the same day he tested his blood at the opp.party hospital in the evening  evidenced by Ext.P3 which showed that the result was 1.6 mg/dl which was also much more than the result obtained in the  Medivision scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Laboratory.  Therefore the complainant would contend that the test  results  in the opp.party hospital is not correct which amounts to deficiency in service.

Ext. P4 is the report issued by the Medivision Scan and Diagnostic Research Centre Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram after testing the creatinine level of the patient .  And Ext. P4 shows that the creatinine level was 1.3 mg/dl.  But there is absolutely nothing on record to show that the result shown in Ext.P4 is the correct result.   Despite the fact that the entire case of the complainant is based on Ext.P4 nobody  from the Medivision Laboratory was examined to prove  Ext.P4 which was proved through the complainant himself.  The doctor who is the treating the complainant and who has advise him to test the blood at Medivision Laboratory was also not examined and therefore as argued by the  opp.party, the credibility Ext.P4 has to be doubted.  Only if it is established by examining proper person that the result shown in  Ext.P4  is the correct one.  On the basis of Ext.P4 alone it  cannot  be concluded that the result shown in Ext.P2 and P3 are not correct and the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proving that aspect.

DW.2 is the Medical Officer, Department of Biochemistry, Medical College, Thiruvgananthapuram She has stated that the creatinine level may very due to many reasons.  She has further stated that even  if the blood of a patient is tested in the same laboratory at different  time  the possibility of variation is there which  depends  on  the body condition of the patient.   DW.2 categorically stated that she unable to say whether the result in Ext.P2 and P3 is the correct one or the result in Ext.P4.  Merely because Ext.P4 the creatinine level is shown as 1.3 mg/dl .  In the absence of coherent evidence it cannot be said that it is the correct result and the result in Ext.P2 and P3 are not correct. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the result shown in Ext.P2 and P3 are due to any negligence on the part on the opp.party and it cannot be said that there is any negligence on the side of the opp.party.  Point found accordingly.

     In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

Dated this the     day of March, 2010.

                                                                              .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Firoskhan

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Blood test report

P2. – Blood report dt. 9.1.2005

P3. – Blood report dt. 9.1.05 at the evening

P4. – Blood report dt. 9.1.05 in Medivision Lab

P5. – Receipt in connection with Ext. P1 and P2

P6. – Taxi trip sheet [in 2 Nos.]

P7. – Referral O.P. card in Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram

P8. – Complaint sent by complainant  to Indian Medical Association President

P9.- Blood test report dt.  12.1.2005

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Sister Jeseenda John

DW.2. – Dr. Fathuma Beevi

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Blood Test Result

D2. – External quality assessment scheme report