Complaint filed on: 02-09-2022.
Disposed on: 12-09-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER
CC.No.128/2022
Sri. T.M.Nagaraju, A/a 68 years,
S/o Late Muthanna Shetty,
Beside Sunitha Hotel, SS Pura Main Road,
Jayamma Compound, Tumakuru City
……………….Complainant/s
(By Sri. K.Borappa, Advocate)
V/s
1. Kalyani Biotech Laboratories,
Bharani Complex, 1st Cross,
Sri.Shivakumaraswamiji Circle,
B.H.Road, Ashoka Nagar,
Tumkur, Represented by its
Managing Director.
2. Surya Hospital, 1st Main, Vinayaka Nagara,
Tumkuru City – 572 101 Represented by its
Managing Director.
……………….Opposite Party/s
(OP No.1 – In person)
(OP No.2 by Sri. Guru Law Associates – Advocate)
: O R D E R :
BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER
This complaint, filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000-00+2,49,945-00 and Rs.5,00,000-00 for mental agony along with interest from the date of complaint to till realization.
2. In this case, opposite parties were / are, M/S, Kalyani Biotech Laboratories, Bharani Complex, 1st Cross, Sri.Shivakumaraswamiji Circle, B.H.Road, Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur, Represented by its Managing Director and Surya Hospital, 1st Main, Vinayaka Nagara, Tumkur City – 572 101 Represented by its Managing Director, hereinafter called OP No 1 & OP No 2 respectively.
3. Its a case of the complainant, that the complainant, due to cough, cold and fever, taken treatment at TGMC Associates and later he recovered little bit and even though on 03.09.2020 at about 11.00 AM the complainant himself voluntarily went to OP No.1 for blood check-up and the OP No.1 advised for the test i.e., RTPCR and collected fee of Rs.5000-00 and conducted the test by taking sample and given report as COVID +Ve (COVID-19 E-Gene : Detected and Covid-19 RdRp Gene : Detected and Interpretation : +ve for SARS COV2 Molecular Biology Reported on 04.09.2020) and directed the complainant to admit & take treatment at OP No 2, accordingly the complainant admitted as an inpatient at OP No 2 on 04-09-2020 and taken treatment for Covid 19 and discharged on 10-09-2020 and OP No 2 collected Rs 249945/- from the complainant towards treatment charges. It is further submitted that at the same time, Government of Karnataka, Karnataka State COVID war room has given report, stating that Sri.Nagaraju, Male A/a 66 years, SRF ID2954800081385 the KALYANI BIOTECH DIAGNOSTICS, TUMKUR conducted COVID test on 03-09-2020 and declared result as, NEGATIVE and meanwhile District Hospital, Tumkur given a report stating that “Covid Result Summary 2020” Complainant : T M. NAGARAJU 66, M, Tumkur , sample received dated:03.09.2020 and sample tested date:05.09.2020 SRF ID No.2954800081385, Result: Antigen Negative. The complainant shocked by seeing the results, that the complainant was not suffered from COVID-19 and the OP NO 1 & OP No 2 colluded with each other with bad intention of extracting the money from the complainant illegally. The complainant approached the OP No 1 & 2, several times to get his money back and even after the legal notices served, the OP No 1 & 2, not responded, hence this complaint.
- After the complaint registered, Commission notice, served to the OP No 1 & 2. The OP No.1 appeared in person and filed his version admitting the averments of the Paragraph No.2 and 3 of the complaint. It is further submitted that the averments in Paragraph No. 4 & 5 is not related to this OP No 1. The OP No.1 further contended that the complainant came to their Lab with cough, cold and fever, the OP No.1 conducted RTPCR test by collecting the amount as fixed by the Government and on 04.09.2020, reported that the complainant suffering from COVID-19 and directed to consult any suitable COVID hospitals to take treatment. It is further contended that as per the record, applicant i.e. complainant name was T.M.Nagaraju, Male 66 years, SRF ID No.2954800083594 (Ph:8197099310) and his RTPCR result was COVID +Ve, on same day i.e. 03.09.2020 another person, his name Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, came to the lab for blood check-up and undergone RTPCR test, his SRF ID No. was 2954800081385 (Ph:9448024602) and the test, result was COVID –ve, and the complainant with the intention of extracting money from the OP No 1, by using the COVID test result of another person i.e. Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, SRF ID No. 2954800081385 (Ph:9448024602), the complainant filed this complaint. It is further submitted that as per the guidelines of COVID 19, even if Antigen report comes as Negative, to conclude the COVID, conduct of RTPCT test is must and the result of RTPCR is final. The OP No 1 further contended that the complainant, instead of creating new SRF ID, by using same SRF ID i.e. 2954800083594, the complainant in the District Hospital Tumkur undergone, Antigen test and the District Hospital Tumkur, after the test given result as, Antigen Negative ,it leads to create a doubts, if any fault occurs, the Dist. Hospital Tumkur is responsible for the same and moreover the complainant did not made the District Hospital Tumkur as a necessary party to this case and hence for non joinder of party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the complainant given a complaint in this regard to the DHO (District Health Officer) and to the D.C of TUMKUR (Deputy Commissioner). and subsequently, on enquiry the complainant failed to establish the allegation made against the OP No 1, by producing supporting documents and the complainant by imagining and using another person SRF ID, filed this false complaint. On these among other grounds, the OP No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- The OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and files the version contending that the complainant knowingly stated various falsehoods whilst simultaneously refraining from disclosing several other vital facts in the complaint. The complainant was admittedly symptomatic and has voluntarily gone to the OP No.1 and got him RT-PCR tested and the OP No.1 has declared the test for Covid-19 is positive and thereafter the complainant got admitted to the OP No 2 hospital. This OP No 2 has followed the standard Covid-19 protocol of admission and treatment with respect to the complainant and provided good quality health care service to the complainant and the complainant recovered / stable and thereafter discharged from the OP No2 hospital. It is further submitted that when the complainant complained to the District Health Officer, Tumkur alleging similar accusation, the same has been investigated by Taluk Health Officer, Tumkur District and found no substance in the allegation made by the complainant. The OP NO 2 is the 3rd private medical establishment in Tumkur city to share the burden of the State Government to provide health care service to the persons affected with Covid-19 virus and the OP No 2 has done a commendable job during pandemic and treated many patients. The OP No 2 has applied standard charges for the health care services provided and received the same. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of this OP No 2, hence, prays to dismiss the complaint.
- The complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant at the time of marking of documents submits that he will mark 10 documents as ExP1 to ExP10, but the complainant marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P39. Sri. Pavan Kumar .K. Director of OP No.1 has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R4 and Ex R5. Dr.Lakshmikantha .J. Pediatrician and Managing Director, has filed his evidence by of affidavit on behalf of OP No.2 and not filed any documents.
- . On 08-02-2023, the OP No 2, counsel filed an application U/O 11, rule 14 of CPC to produce the inspection report of the District Health officer and Taluk health officer, accordingly this commission directed the District Health officer and Taluk Health officer to submit the inspection report, after the enquiry, the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, on 20-02-2023 submitted the enquiry report dated 07-02-2023 to this commission.
8. We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant and OP No.2 Counsel for complainant and OP No.2 also filed their written arguments. The OP No.1 did not address the arguments in spite of sufficient was granted.
9. The points that would arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant proves the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of OP No 1 & OP No 2?
- Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
10. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the partly affirmative
Point No.2: As per below order
:R E A S O N S:
Point Nos.(1) & (2):
11. On perusal of the complaint, affidavit evidence, and written brief of the complainant, its revels that the complainant undergone RTPCR test on 09-09-2020 with the OP No 1 by paying fee of Rs 5000/- and due to COVID 19 positive, admitted in OP No 2 hospital as inpatient from 04-09-2020 to 10-09-2020, and after the treatment the complainant discharged and paid Rs 249945/- to the OP No 2, towards treatment charges. The complainant submitted that, the OP No 1 & OP No 2, colluded with bad intention of extracting money from the complainant, created false documents stating that the complainant test result was covid positive, the complainant shocked seeing his test report of covid warm room and district hospital, Tumkur, which shown as Covid Negative, hence the complainant prayed to allow his complaint and grant compensation. The complainant produced documents, ExP1 & ExP2, copy of notices to OP No 1&2, ExP3,copy of OP No 1 prescription slip for RTPCR test, ExP4, copy of Cash bill of OP No 1, wherein its recorded as Nagaraju, Male, ID 1283, mobile No 8197099310, time 11AM report on 12-09-2020, Amount Rs 5000/-, ExP5,copy of Molecular Biology results, reflected as, Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Prashanth HV, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;46364, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager. ExP6, copy of referral slip of the OP No 1, dated 03-09-2020, ExP7, copy of the discharge summery, ExP8, copy of ICMR test report of SRF Id 2954800081385, its reflected as Covid 19 tested in kalyani biotech diagnostics Tumkur on 03-09-2020, declared as Negative, ExP9, copy of covid result summery by the District Hospital Tumkur, result as Antigen negative, ExP10, copy of medicines purchased on 04-09-2020 for Rs 5491/-, ExP11,to Ex P18, copies of medicines purchased on 05-09-2020 for Rs 833/-, Rs246/-,Rs1248/-, Rs148/-, Rs 244/-, Rs 6949/-, Rs244/- and 5400/-, ExP19, copy of medicines purchased on 06-09-2020 for Rs 2015/-, ExP20 and ExP21, copies of medicines purchased on 07-09-2020 for Rs 4522/- and Rs 2972/-, ExP22 to ExP29, copies of medicines purchased on 08-09-2020 for Rs 221/-, Rs 2670/-, Rs 11291/-, Rs 8250/-, Rs 572/-,Rs703/-, Rs 3140/-, Rs 5446/-, ExP30, copy of medicines purchased on 09-09-2020 for Rs 91/- and ExP31 and ExP32, copies of medicines purchased on 10-09-2020 for Rs 1730 and Rs 7519/-, ExP33 copies of inpatient provisional bill for Rs 92920/-, Ex P34 & Ex P35, copy receipt of advance of Rs 40000/- paid by the complainant to the OP No2, ExP36, copy of inpatient final bill for Rs 89000/- ,ExP37, copy of the complaint to DC, ExP38 copy of legal notice to OP No1 dated06-10-2020, ExP39 postal receipts/acknowledgements.
12. On perusal of the version and affidavit evidence of the OP No 1, the OP No 1, admitted the facts that the complainant on 03-09-2020,approached the OP NO 1, voluntarily, and the OP No 1 conducted RTPCR test to the complainant by collecting fee of Rs 5000/- from the complainant, since the test report was positive, directed the complainant to take treatment immediately in OP No 2,and the Government covid war room test result dated 03-09-2020 of Nagaraju aged 66 years SRF ID No 2954800081385 was negative, but the OP No 1 contention, it’s not related to the complainant, the complainant SRF ID No 2954800083594, result declared as Covid positive. The OP No 1 not admitted the facts that the District Hospital Tumkur, sample received dated 03-09-2020 and test dated 05-09-2020 of Nagaraju aged 66 years SRF ID No 2954800081385 was negative Antigen. The OP No 1, contention is that on the same day i.e. 03-09-2020,another person, named Nagaraju, regn Id 1283,undergone RTPCR test, his, SRF ID No was 2954800081385 and the covid test report was negative and the same day the complainant also undergone RTPCR test with regn Id 1287, SRF ID No 2954800083594, result declared as Covid positive, but the complainant, the name of another person and age is same as the complainant, i.e. Nagaraju, 66 years, by using test report of another person i.e. SRF ID No 2954800081385, regd id; 1283,result was negative, the complainant filed false complaint to extract money from the Op No 1. The OP No 1 filed ExR1, copy of the Government circular dated 10-07-2020, ExR2, copy of graph, wherein reflected as M1283, truenat TM SARS Cov2 very low,E-geme, RdRp detected positive.ExP3, copy of ICMR details, where in ICMR ID 55713090 & 55715519 pertaining to regd id; M1287 & M1283, SRF Id; 2954800083594 & 2954800081385 respectively. Ex R5, copy of the OP No 1, prescription for RTPCR dated 03-09-2020, Ex R5, copy of covid test reports.
13. On perusal of the version and affidavit filed by the OP No 2, its clear that the OP No 2, admitted the complainant on 04-09-2020 as Covid positive symptomatic based on the OP No 1 covid test report i.e. RTPCR, which was covid positive, the complainant given treatment as per the standard Covid-19 protocol and the complainant discharged on 10-09-2020, the complainant recovered and stable at the time of discharge from the OP No 2 hospital and the complainant paid the treatment charges.
14. The Taluk Health officer Tumkur, report dated 07-02-2023, opinioned that, there is variation in the report of the OP NO 1. On perusal of the ICMR data, submitted by the Taluk Health officer, this reflected as,
A) ICMR ID 55715519, SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS – Cov2 Negative, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52.
B) ICMR ID 55713090, SRF ID; 2954800083594,Result; SARS – Cov2 Positive, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54.
It’s clear that, there is an variation in reporting, with respect to the Report Id; 1283 and Report Id; 1287, whereas Report Id; 1283, bill /receipts shows that, person visited lab on 03-09-2020 @ 11.00 AM and Report Id; 1287, bill /receipts shows that, person visited lab on 03-09-2020 @ 12.00 PM, but in specimen information, Report Id; M 1283,details reflected as, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54. and Report Id; 1287, shown as, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52.
The doubt arised is, when the first person visited the lab for test, assigned Report Id; 1283, accordingly Report Id; 1287 issued to person visited the lab later, accordingly, Report Id; 1283 data reflected in Report Id; 1287 and Report Id; 1287 data reflected in Report Id 1283, hence the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, opinioned that variation in the Report of the OP No 1.
15. As, alleged by the complainant, that the OP No1, created another SRF ID to cheat the complainant, even though on 04-09-2020 the complainant not undergone RTPCR test with the OP No1 and in turn the complainant issued legal notice (ExP38) dated 06-10-2020 in this regard, to the OP No 1, the OP No 1,not replied to the complainant and the OP No 1 defense of, the complainant using the covid test result of the same, name and age of other person, i.e. Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, tested on same day i.e. 03-09-2020 for covid test, report was Negative, where as the complainant covid test report was positive, the OP No1, in its version page No 3, admitted the facts that the, the complainant on 03-09-2020 visited the OP NO 1, Lab at 11.00 AM and RTPCR test conducted by collecting fee of Rs 5000/- which evidenced by the bill / receipt (ExP4). The OP No 1, in its version, page No 3 in para 8, stated as applicant Name (complainant) is TM Nagaraju, Male, 66 years, SRF ID is 2954800083594, its result declared as Covid positive and in para 9 of its version stated as another person Name Nagaraju, Male, 66 years and SRF ID is 2954800081385, its result declared as Covid Negative. On perusal of the (ExP5), the molecular biology result which reflected as, patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Prashanth HV, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;46364,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, on contrary, another two molecular biology results, of the OP No 1, produced to the, Taluk Health officer, Tumkur, which reflected as,
(1) patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800083594, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;91137,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, on contrary, in ICMR data, reflected as, ICMR ID 55713090, SRF ID; 2954800083594, Result; SARS – Cov2 Positive, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54.
(2) patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1287, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 12,16 SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; Negative for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;91137, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, on contrary, in ICMR data, reflected as, ICMR ID 55715519, SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS – Cov2 Negative, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52.
On perusal of the receipt / bill (ExP4) of the OP No 1, which shown as, Name; Nagaraju, Age 66 years, Regn No 1283,Date;03-09-2020 @ 11.00 Referred by Dr Chethan and report on 12.09.2020, on contrary, the receipt / bill produced by the OP No1 to the Taluk Health Officer, Tumkur, which shown as, Name; Nagaraju, Age 66 years, Regn No 1283, Date;03-09-2020 @ 11.00,Referred by Dr Chethan and report on 13.05.2022, and another the receipt / bill, which shown as, Name; Nagaraju, Age 66 years, Regn No 1287, Date;03-09-2020 @ 12.00 Referred by Dr Basavaraju and report on 13.05.2022, when we look at the report on details, in two receipts / bills, it is recorded as date of report on, 13.05.2022, which proves that the OP No 1, created and manipulated the documents, further when we cross check the Specimen information, of SRF ID; 295480008135,Result; SARS – Cov2 Negative, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 03-09-2020 @ 12.26.28, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, Date & time of sample testing; 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, Date & time of result reported; 19-09-2020 @ 13.39.52. and the SRF ID; 2954800083594,Result; SARS – Cov2 Positive, test Type; RTPCR, Specimen type; oropharyngeal swab, Report Id; M 1283, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, Date & time of result reported; 17-09-2020 @ 19.54.54, as the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, report dated 07-02-2023, opinioned that, there is variation in the report of the OP NO 1, pertaining to reporting of Covid 19 test reporting with respect to the Regn No; M1283 & 1287 , accordingly it’s clear that, the OP No 1, manipulated the data of Regn No; M1283,as M1287 and data of M1287 as M1283.
It’s clear, that the OP NO 1, manipulated the results of the complainant, as the OP NO 1, admitted in its version, that, the complainant visited the lab on 03-09-2020 at 11.00 and RTPCR test conducted on 03-09-2020, which evidenced by (ExP4) OP No 1 receipt / bill ,accordingly as per specimen information recorded in ICMR data, sample collected on 03-09-2020 @ 13.40.26, and tested on 03-09-2020 @ 23.05.56, accordingly, the complainant SRF ID is ; 295480008135, Reg No, is, 1283 and ICMR ID is 55715519 and the Result is ; SARS – Cov2 Negative, which were evidenced by complainant documents (ExP8, and ExP9) and the Taluk Health officer, Tumkur. The OP NO 1, created another person namely, Nagaraju, 66 years, , Reg No, is, 1287, Date & time of sample collection; 04-09-2020 @ 19.36.25, Date & time of sample received @ lab; 04-09-2020 @ 20.10.08, Date & time of sample testing; 04-09-2020 @ 23.30.08, accordingly, the OP No 1, created the documents, i.e. the Bay 1 & 2 (ExR2), wherein the patient ID was 1283, result was detected Covid positive, another document i.e. molecular biology result, patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800083594, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Shilpa, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;91137,at 11.01, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, and the OP No 1, on 03-09-2020, without the results declared, directed and refered (ExP6) the complainant, to the OP No2 to take treatment of Covid positive by giving created, molecular biology result (ExP5), which reflected as, patient name; Nagaraju, Male, Reg No 1283, referred by Dr Chethan, Reg date, 03-09-2020 @ 11.06, SRF ID; 2954800081385, Results; positive for SARS cov2, Report by Dr Prashanth HV, MBBS, MD, Consultant Microbiologist, Regn No;46364, verified by Pavan kumar quality Manager, which accounts to 'unfair trade practices' and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No 1. another defense of the OP No 1, in para 11 page 4 of his version, that the complainant instead of creating new SRF ID, used the SRF ID of the person got negative covid result (SRF ID; 295480008135),the District Hospital Tumkur, conducted Antigen test and result was negative, it’s clear from the SOP for reporting Covid 19,tests, Government of Karnataka circular No NHM/12/MD-NHM/20-21 dated25-08-2020, in para 6, stated as, if the suspect is symptomatic another NP/OP swab is collected without generating new SRF ID.
16. On perusal of the OP No 2, case sheet (IP No 10208) submitted by the Taluk Health officer Tumkur, pertaining to the complainant, wherein, in case sheet, in Diagnose column, written as Symptomatic Covid positive, the complainant admitted to the OP No 2 hospital on 04-09-2020 @ 10.40 AM, and molecular biology result (ExP5) enclosed which was attested by the OP No 2 doctor, by affixing seal of the OP No2, which proves that the OP No 1 referred the complainant to the OP No2, accordingly, the OP No 2 treated the complainant for Covid positive. The OP No 2, on 04-09-2020, collected Rs 5000/- (ExP36) from the complainant towards lab charges, but the OP No 2, not produced any documents relating to tests conducted to the complainant, nor not recorded in the discharge summery of the complainant, which leads to 'unfair trade practices' and deficiency of service on the part of the OP No 2.
17. In this case, in the above discussions, this Commission is in the opinion of, the OP No 1 and OP No 2, colluded with each other with bad intention of extracting the money from the complainant illegally. The OP No 1, being a medical service provider, i.e. diagnostic centre, completely failed to fulfill the guidelines, in the instant case without considering medical ethics. The OP No 1 not diagnosed the complainant sample properly and created false documents / molecular biology result, as covid positive, even though its Negative, and referred to the OP No 2 / hospital for covid positive treatment, accordingly the OP No 2, collected Lab charges of Rs 5000/-from the complainant, but not given any tests reports to the complainant, nor not recorded in the reports, and covid treatment given to the complainant, and collected Rs 160945/- ( Ex P10 to ExP32 and Ex P36) from the complainant and made the complainant to suffer and exposed to the high dosage medicines. Therefore, we conclude that OP No. 1 and OP No 2 are negligent in conducting the procedure for conducting lab test and treating the patient for covid treatment respectively. The OP No 1 created the test report of the complainant as Covid positive, even though, its Negative, and referred to the OP No 2, for the treatment, accordingly OP No 2, treated the complainant for the Covid positive from 04-09-2020 to 10-09-2020,by collecting treatment charges of Rs 160945/-, hence the OP No1,is liable to pay the treatment expenses incurred and paid by the complainant i.e. Rs 160945/- and the OP No 2 is liable to pay Rs 5000/- collected from the complainant towards test with interest @ 8 % p.a, from the date of discharge i.e. 10-09-2020. The complainant prays to award Rs 5,00,000.00 towards mental agony, but to substantiate, proper evidences not produced by the complainant, by considering the above discussions, this commission is in the opinion of, it’s appropriate and proper to order, the OP No 1 to Pay Rs 25000-00 and Rs 25000-00 towards compensation and punitive damages respectively to the complainant and compelled the complainant to approach this commission, hence OP No 1 and OP No 2 are liable to pay the litigation cost of Rs.8000-00 and Rs 8000-00 respectively to the complainant, accordingly we proceed to pass the order as;
:O R D E R:
Complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP Nos.1 and OP No.2, is directed to pay Rs.1,60,945-00 (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand nine hundred forty five only) and Rs.5,000-00 (Rupees Five thousand), respectively to the complainant, along with interest @ 8.00 % p.a from the date of discharge of the complainant i.e. 10-09-2022 to till realization to the complainant.
It is further directed the OP No.1 to Pay Rs.25,000-00 (Rupees twenty five Only) towards compensation and another Rs.25,000 (Rupees twenty five Only) towards punitive damage to the complainant.
The OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.8,000.00 (Rs. Eight Thousand only) each (Rs.8,000-00 + Rs.8,000-00 = Rs.16,000-00) towards litigation costs to the complainant.
The OPs 1 & 2 are further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order, otherwise, it carries fine of 150/- per day till realization.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.
