SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER
The Complainant filed this complaint under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction against the OP to pay an amount of Rs. 300/- and Rs.240/- extra amount paid to Metropolis Laboratory along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and stress to the complainant.
The complainant in brief
The complainant is a business man and on 1/12/2020 complainant went to the OP’s lab to test his blood sugar, cholesterol and thyroid and paid Rs.300/-. The test result of blood sugar and cholesterol given by OP by 10.00 A.M and told thyroid test will be provided by evening only. But complainant never received thyroid result as promised by complainant. When complainant approached OP to enquire and the OP told that complainant had not remitted the fees required for the test and hence they are not liable to give the result. According to complainant even after the payment of fees required for the test he is denied proper service by OP. After that complainant went Metropolis laboratory for thyroid test and paid the additional amount. Hence this complaint
After filing this complaint, commission has sent notice to OP and the OP is appeared before the commission and filed his version accordingly.
Version of OP in brief:
The OP contended that complainant is not a consumer since the complainant had not paid any consideration to OP for his services. The OP admits the visit of complainant to his lab to test blood sugar, cholesterol and thyroid but denies the payment of fees for the test. When the samples for the tests were taken a slip containing the details and the charges for each tests and payment details was handed over to complainant. The OP further more contended that if the complainant had paid Rs.300/- the slip will be stamped as paid. The complainant was familiar to OP and not insisted him to make payment of the time of giving results of blood sugar and cholesterol. Moreover, complainant promised to give the payment while collecting thyroid test result in evening. But, complainant phoned OP to send the result which was denied by OP because of non payment of fees for the results. All the allegations regarding mis behavior , manhandling complainant etc are false. The complainant never visited OP’s lab with payment slip which he alleges that evidence of the payment. There is no merit in the case and is liable to be dismissed.
Due to the rival contentions raised by the OP to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues accordingly.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of OP?
- Whether there is any compensation & cost to the complainant?
In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence for both parties. The complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A6. Ext.A1 is the original cash receipt issued by OP dtd.1/12/2020. Ext.A2 is the lab report issued by OP dtd.1/12/2020. Ext.A3 is the bill cum receipt issued by Metropolis lab dtd.11/12/2020. Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A5 is the acknowledgment card and Ext.A6 is reply notice. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1. OP produced documents which is marked as Exts.B1&B2. Ext.B1 is the lab report dtd.1/12/2020 and Ext.B2 is the lab report issued by Care ’n’ Care lab dtd.1/12/2020. The OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1. Both parties are filed argument note before the commission.
Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidences filed before the commission to answer the issues.
Issue No.1
On the perusal of Ext.A1, the details of test required by complainant is mentioned along with its expenses. The total amount is shown as Rs.300/-. It is true that the columns “Advance and balance” is blank but there is a seal seen in Ext.A1 as “cash received”. During the cross examination of OP admits that Ext.A1 except the seal engrossed on it , thereafter he clearly deposed that they will provide bill only after the payment and hence OP provided the result of blood sugar and cholesterol and OP stated during the cross examination that he has no early acquaintance with complainant which was against the statement made by OP in the proof affidavit. Here it is seen from Ext.A2, the result of blood sugar and cholesterol was provided to complainant on 1/12/2020. Hence the OP’s contention regarding the non-payment of total amount towards the test result is not in tune with Exts.A1&A2 and his deposition during the cross examination. Moreover, the OP produced Ext.B2 showing the test result of Thyroid but there is no evidence before the commission to prove that, what prevented OP to provide test result to complainant when OP admitted Ext.A1 and stated that the column of “Advance and balance” will be filled only when such respective payment made. Here Ext.A1 speaks that cash is received through its seal. There is no evidence produced by OP to prove his contention that the seal engrossed on it was not theirs, only mere statement will not take away the credibility of evidence produced before the commission by parties. According to Ext.A3, it is seen that complainant had approached another lab to test his thyroid . From all these documents produced by complainant to this commission, it is clear that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party towards complainant. Hence issue No.1 is answered in favour of complainant.
Issue No.2:
The complainant is entitled to get compensation on the basis of Ext.A1 since there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party by not providing the test result as required by complainant even after cash received as per Ext.A1. Hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.200/- which was paid by complainant to test his thyroid in opposite party’s lab , Rs.240/- which is the cost of additional lab test result, and also pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-original cash receipt dt.1/12/2020
A2-Lab report dtd.1/12/2020
A3-bill cum receipt
A4-lawyer notice
A5- Acknowledgment card
A6-reply notice
B1- Ext.A1 Blood report
B2- Thyroid report
PW1-Rasheed.K.N-complainant
DW1-Jayavivek Mundachali- OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
