SRI. SAJEESH.K.P : MEMBER

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking direction against opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- for  compensation of mental and hardship.

Complaint in brief

            According to the complaint, complainant is a higher secondary school teacher at Kadachira HSS, Kannur.  On 18/11/2021, complainant suffered fever, throat infection and cold which were considered as the symptoms of Covid – 19 and she underwent lab test with OPs and paid Rs.500/- which no receipt was issued and complainant got test result stated that she is covid negative.  After that she went to consult a doctor and latter suggested to repeat the test and complainant tested her samples with another lab and its result turned the complainant is Covid +ve.  The Complainant had two small children and she is a teacher by profession and the consequences of the test result given by OPs will course hardship to her family as well as her students.  The complainant contended that OP practiced unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and hence this complaint.

            After filing this complaint commission has send notice to both OPs and both OPs received the notice and entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly. 

Version in brief

            The OPs denied the entire averments except those specifically admitted.  The OPs have no personal details of the petitioner and the  and the records kept with OP2 shows that  complainant’s Swab sample was taken by OP No.1 on 19/11/2021 and was sent to OP No.2.  The result was given to complainant on 20/11/2021.  As per the test result complainant found Covid negative.  An amount of Rs.500/- collected admitted by OP No.2 towards the charges as provided by Govt. guideline.  The OP No.2 contended that in the report of the test it is clearly specified that negative results do not preclude SRAS-COV-2 and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions and to repeat test after 48 to 72 hours if clinically suspected. It was informed to complainant that this report is not conclusive and the test is to be repeated if there any clinical suspicion arises.  Moreover OP contended that due to the pandemic situation school were closed and hence no hardships.  The 2^nd OP is a reputed lab with ICMR approval and NABL accreditation.  The OP No.2 contended that complainant may tested at the initial stage of symptoms and thereafter it develops and during the 2^nd test it turned as positive, which the OP No.2 never practiced any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  The OP No.1 is only a collecting agent and has nothing to do with the test done.  The complaint is frivolous and exorbitant and has no merit and hence liable to be dismissed.

 Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to case the issues accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Compensation and cost?   

In order to answer the issues, the Commission called for the evidence from both parties.  Complainant produced documents, which is marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  A1 is the Covid 19 test report issued by OP No.2 dated 20/11/2021 and Ext.A2 is the Covid 19 test report issued by Appolo Medical laboratory, Kannur dated 20/11/2021.  The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  From the side of OPs no document produced.  OP No.2 adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as Dw1.  Both side filed argument notes.

For the sake of convenience both issues were considered together. On the perusal of evidences before the commission, the question is the authenticity of swab test report delivered by two labs which is tested within duration of 18 hours from the prior test.  According to the Ext.A1 the swab was collected on 19/11/2021 at 10.39 PM which the result turned negative.  But according to the complaint, complainant consulted a doctor on the very next day of test result and the swab was again tested within a duration of 18 hours and the result which was marked as Ext.A2, seen as complainant is Covid positive.  The contention raised by OPs here is in according to Ext.A1 it is clearly stated that the test report does not preclude SARS-COV2 and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions kindly repeat test after 48 to 72 hours if clinically suspected.  Here the commission came into in a view that complainant suffered from the symptoms made her to test again and it resulted that complainant is Covid +ve.  There is no evidence before the commission to prove that the swab collected by OP No.1 is as per the government regulations.  Hence, the commission is in the view that both OPs are liable to pay compensation to complainant as the authenticity of the test result is not a reliable one and OPs are failed to prove that there is no deficiency in service.  Therefore, the issues answered in favour of complainant.

            In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The both opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. Failing which, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts.

A1-Test report issued by OP2

A2- Test report issued by Appolo lab

Pw1-Complainant

Dw1-OP No.2

       Sd/                                                                                   Sd/                                                       Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar