Complainant Usha Devi through the present complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter, for short ‘the Act’) has prayed for issuance of the necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to refund Rs.50,000/- spent by her upon her medical treatment besides to pay her Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment suffered by her in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that she on 03.04.2013 visited the OP1 clinic who directed her to the OP2 Laboratory for Blood Tests for Malaria and Withal Test etc., that somehow tested positive but her condition further worsened even after taking medicines for two days and she went to Chauhan Hospital on 05.03.2013 where she was tested again for Withal and that tested ‘negative’ but she had to get admitted for indoor medical-treatment and had to spend Rs.50,000/- on her treatment and all this had occurred due to the wrong diagnosis and medical treatment at the hands of the tilted opposite parties. And, thus she has preferred the present complaint with the desired relief as sought, hereinabove.

3.       Upon notice, the OP1 Store and the OP2 Laboratory appeared through the counsel and filed their joint written statement denying that the complainant did ever approach the OP1 Store that has been claimed to be a Medical Store and not a Clinic as such no medical treatment was ever offered to the complainant. It is however admitted that the complainant got her Blood Tests conducted on her own on 03.04.2013 and was tested positive for the withal tests. She admittedly took medicines for two days but condition worsened and she went to Chauhan Hospital where she was found to be ‘mild positive’ for withal tests on 05.04.2013 and that was quite natural since she had admittedly taken medicines for two days. Finally, setting aside the complainants allegations of deficiency in service the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs along with a deeming fit award in the OP’s favor.  

4.         The counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant the Ex.C1 duly deposing the allegations/averments made in the complaint; and other supporting documents exhibited here as: Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 to prosecute the complaint. The counsel for the OP1 Medical Store and the OP2 Laboratory produced Ex.OP1 the joint affidavit of the two proprietors of the two opposite parties (Sic) deposing the contents of the joint written reply and other documents exhibited here as: Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-9 to prosecute their joint defense. We have carefully examined the documents produced while going through the pleadings of both the parties and have attentively heard both side arguments advanced by their learned counsels and have also appreciated the evidence available on record for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint.

5.       We find that the complainant has failed to prove on record her alleged visit on 03.04.2013 to the OP1 medical store and/or any of its prescription(s) etc directing her to the OP2 Laboratory for Blood Tests etc. There is also no evidence of her having received medical treatment/medicines from the OP1 Store for two days that further worsened her condition on 05.04.2013 forcing her to get medical treatment at the Chauhan Hospital, Gurdaspur; where the Blood Tests conducted afresh upon her showed different results i.e., negative ratings in withal-tests etc. However, the counsel for the OP2 Laboratory has justified its Blood Test Report Ex.C2 to be correct at that point of time on 03.04.2013 since the Second Reports Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 of 05.04.2013 at the Chauhan Hospital too showed mild-positive results for withal tests (since the patient had admittedly taken medicines for the intervening two days) and that strengthened the veracity of the OP2 Tests. In the absence of any strict adverse evidence to the contrary the probability of truth in the OP2’s explanation/argument/pleadings has to be accepted giving the benefit of doubt to the OP2 Laboratory.

6.       In the light of the all above, and in the absence of availability of any strict evidence put forth in affirmation, we find the present complaint bereft of any merit under the Act and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no orders as to its costs.      

7.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.                                                                                       

             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                               President

ANNOUNCED:                       (G.B.S.Bhullar)               (Jagdeep Kaur)

February 18, 2015.                              Member                         Member

*MK*