DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/242/2022
Date of Institution: 24.11.2022
Date of Decision: 28.08.2024
Chandan Lal, aged about 31 years, son of Munna Lal, resident of Bangher Patti, Village Dhanaula, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Krsnaa Diagnostics (Mohali) Pvt. Ltd., PPQ7+VFR, 56-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali through Director/Authorized Person.
2. Krsnaa Diagnostics (Mohali) Pvt. Ltd., authorized branch office/collection centre at Civil Hospital, Barnala through its authorized person.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Present: Sh. Rajveer Singh Sidhu Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Gagandeep Garg Adv counsel for opposite parties.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari: Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act against Krsnaa Diagnostics (Mohali) Pvt. Ltd., PPQ7+VFR, 56-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali through Director/Authorized Person & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the opposite parties provides all kind of Pathology Services and the opposite party No. 1 is having sample collection centre at Civil Hospital, Barnala. It is further alleged that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties vide patient UID No. PRB22080008212 dated 23.08.2022 issued by Krsnaa Diagnostics as complainant gave the samples at Civil Hospital, Barnala from time to time medically tested from the opposite parties and on 23.08.2022 the complainant gave his samples to opposite party No. 2 at Barnala for COMPLETE BLOOD COUNTER WITH ESR, RANDOM BLOOD GLUCOSE, LIVER FUNCTION TEST (LFT), LIPID PROFTLE, Blood Urea Nitrogen-Serum, Creatinine-Serum, Uric Acid-Serum, Amylase-Serum, HBsAg (Rapid), Anti HCV, CRP (C-Reactive Protein), THYROID FUNCTION TESTS. It is further alleged that out of the above said tests, Anti HCV came reactive and the complainant shocked to see that the said test became reactive and the complainant to re-verify the said positivity of Anti HCV, again gave his sample at Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory, Shop No. 4, Bus Stand, Dhanula on 3.9.2022 and which HCV (Hepatitis C) and HCV (Hepatitis C) (Repeat) became Non-Reactive and the complainant to get confirm the said report of Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory, again gave his sample on 5.9.2022 at Dhanaula and the same was sent to Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 418, Sadar Patel Enclave, Sector-23, Rohini, New Delhi-110086 for its checking and on 6.9.2022 said Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. submit the report regarding HCV as Non-Reactive and Hepatitis C Virus RNA as Quantitative and also got tested himself from Community Health Centre, Dhanaula (The Punjab Health System Corporation) on 16.9.2022 regarding said HCV and from where the report also shown as NR/Non-Reactive. It is further alleged that the said act and conduct of the opposite parties is very negligent and clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant suffered a great mental shock, pain and agony and spent more than Rs. 17,000/- on the medical tests and fro expenses due to the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) The opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 1,37,000/- as compensation and other relief which this Commission deems fit.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply. It is alleged that the opposite parties denied all the allegations of the complaint and stated that the present complaint is false and frivolous. It is further alleged that the opposite parties rendering pathology services in-the State of Punjab and for the said purpose it has set up collection centers across various locations and the collection center at Civil Hospital, Barnala is one of them. It is further alleged that as per the contentions in para b, the complainant did give the blood sample for testing at the collection center for the tests enumerated at para 'b' of the complaint. It is further submitted that the report generated by the opposite parties clearly stated that though the Anti HCV test was reactive, the report clearly had a disclaimer as below:
Medical Remarks: Card id weakly reactive
Chemillumenesence/PCR is strongly advised before start of definitive treatment. It is further submitted that the methodology used for testing a particular sample and the methodology used at the collection center was immunochromatography and hence, this result is possible though the report was "reactive", the complainant was duly informed and suggested that a confirmatory test needs to be performed. However, instead of doing so, the complainant performed tests in different labs and there are various factors that affect a test result including but not limited to the methodology used, the time of sample collection, etc. It is further submitted that the allegations made in para 'd' and 'e' are not acceptable and not true and the opposite parties have rendered services diligently and hence the question of negligence does not arise and they followed the proper procedure and has tested the sample carefully. Hence, there is no deficiency in services on part of the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the complainant has filed a report from Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory which is signed by a technologist and as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India, no technologist can sign a report and hence the validity and genuineness of the report is also in question and same is the case with the report submitted by the Community Health Center, Dhanaula. The said report merely looks like a prescription and accepting the said report in evidence and in support of the claim is also in question and also the existence of such labs is also a doubt seeing the reports submitted and placed on record. It is further submitted that while the report was being handed over to the complainant the complainant was duly communicated that a confirmatory test was required. However, the complainant was failed to do so. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant filed replication to the written version of opposite parties vide which he denied the averments as mentioned in the reply.
5. The complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of Lab report of Krsnna Diagnostics Ex.C-2 (containing 13 pages), copy of Lab report of Public Sewa Lab Ex.C-3 (containing 2 pages), copy of lab report of Wellness Diagnostics Ex.C-4 (containing 2 pages), copy of OPD Slip Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Manish Dattatray Karekar Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of Procedure of HCV TRI DOT Ex.O.Ps-2 (containing 4 pages), resolution dated 29.12.2022 Ex.O.Ps-3 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.
8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant on 23.08.2022 the complainant gave his samples to opposite party No. 2 at Barnala for COMPLETE BLOOD COUNTER WITH ESR, RANDOM BLOOD GLUCOSE, LIVER FUNCTION TEST (LFT), LIPID PROFTLE, Blood Urea Nitrogen-Serum, Creatinine-Serum, Uric Acid-Serum, Amylase-Serum, HBsAg (Rapid), Anti HCV, CRP (C-Reactive Protein), THYROID FUNCTION TESTS (as per Ex.C-2 containing 13 pages). It is further argued that out of the above said tests, Anti HCV came reactive and the complainant shocked to see that the said test became reactive and the complainant to re-verify the said positivity of Anti HCV, again gave his sample at Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory, Shop No. 4, Bus Stand, Dhanula on 3.9.2022 (as per Ex.C-3) and which HCV (Hepatitis C) and HCV (Hepatitis C) (Repeat) became Non-Reactive and the complainant to get confirm the said report of Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory. It is further argued that the complainant again gave his sample on 5.9.2022 at Dhanaula and the same was sent to Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 418, Sadar Patel Enclave, Sector-23, Rohini, New Delhi-110086 (Ex.C-4) for its checking and on 6.9.2022 said Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. submitted the report regarding HCV as Non-Reactive and Hepatitis C Virus RNA as Quantitative and the complainant also got tested himself from Community Health Centre, Dhanaula (The Punjab Health System Corporation) on 16.9.2022 (Ex.C-5) regarding said HCV and from where the report also shown as NR/Non-Reactive. It is further argued that the said act and conduct of the opposite parties is very negligent and clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant suffered a great mental shock, pain and agony and spent more than Rs. 17,000/- on the medical tests and fro expenses due to the opposite parties.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties argued that the opposite parties rendering pathology services in-the State of Punjab and for the said purpose it has set up collection centers across various locations and the collection center at Civil Hospital, Barnala is one of them. It is further argued that the report generated by the opposite parties clearly stated that though the Anti HCV test was reactive, the report clearly had a disclaimer as below: Medical Remarks: Card id weakly reactive and Chemillumenesence/PCR is strongly advised before start of definitive treatment. It is further argued that the methodology used for testing a particular sample and the methodology used at the collection center was immunochromatography and hence, this result is possible though the report was "reactive", the complainant was duly informed and suggested that a confirmatory test needs to be performed but the complainant failed to do so. It is further argued that the complainant has filed a report from Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory which is signed by a technologist and as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India, no technologist can sign a report and hence the validity and genuineness of the report is also in question and same is the case with the report submitted by the Community Health Center, Dhanaula. It is further argued that while the report was being handed over to the complainant the complainant was duly communicated that a confirmatory test was required, however the complainant was failed to do so.
10. We have carefully gone through the facts and evidence produced by both the parties. The complainant to prove his case has placed on record the report of opposite parties i.e. Ex.C-2 (containing 13 pages) vide which at Page No. 11 of the report Anti HCV shown as “Reactive”. The sample for the test was collected on 23.8.2022 and result reported on 27.8.2022 and delivered on 3.9.2022 by the opposite parties. The complainant has further placed on record copy of report of Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory Dhanaula dated 3.9.2022 Ex.C-3 which shown HCV (Hepatitits C) “Non-Reactive” and HCV (Hepatitis C) (Repeat) also shown “Non-Reactive”. The complainant has further placed on record copy of report of Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 418, Sadar Patel Enclave, Sector-23, Rohini, New Delhi-110086 (Ex.C-4) vide which the Interpretation shown as “Non-Reactive”. The complainant also placed on record copy of report of Community Health Centre, Dhanaula (The Punjab Health System Corporation) on 16.9.2022 (Ex.C-5) vide which the HCV shown as “Non-Reactive”. On the other hand, the plea of the opposite parties is that the complainant has filed a report from Public Sewa Computerized Laboratory and the report of the Community Health Center, Dhanaula which is signed by a technologist and as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India, no technologist can sign a report and hence the validity and genuineness of the report is also in question. Ld. Counsel for the complainant further argued that report placed on record of Wellness Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd. 418, Sadar Patel Enclave, Sector-23, Rohini, New Delhi-110086 (Ex.C-4) vide which the Interpretation shown as “Non-Reactive” which was duly signed by Dr. Sarika Jain, Dr. Nitin Kumar Gupta, Dr. Naveen Kumar and Dr. Pooja Devi and the same are Consultant Pathologist. So, we are of the view that the opposite parties cannot deny the genuineness of the above said report. On the other hand the opposite parties have failed to place on record any cogent evidence in order to rebut the case of the complainant. The complainant has not produced any bill for repeated test of HCV Hepatitis-C from different labs. There is clear cut deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, it is clearly evident that due to wrong report the complainant suffered lot of mental pain and harassment at the hands of opposite parties.
11. From the above said discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission on account of showing negligence while conducting the above said tests and submitting a wrong report of the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
28th Day of August, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
