IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)

N. Premkumar (Member)

O.P.No.40/05 (Filed on 10.03.2005)

Between:

Mollykutty,

Moonuthundil House,

Thumpamon P.O.,

Pathanamthitta. 

(By Adv. K.M. Alexander)                                         ....  Complainant.

And:

1.     Mr. K.N. Sivadas,

Lab Technician,

Delmon Diagnostic & Research-

Centre (DDRC) & Modern-

Medical Laboratory,

Pathanamthitta.

2.     Delmon Diagnostic & Research-

Centre (DDRC), Pathanamthitta-

represented by its Proprietor.

(By Adv. T.S. Radhakrishnan Nair)

3.     Modern Medical Laboratory,

Pathanamthitta represented by

its Proprietor.

                             ....  Opposite parties.

ORDER

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                   The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                   2. The complainant’s case is that due to liver connected sickness and jaundice; she was admitted at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 13.09.2002.  During the course of treatment, the consulting doctor advised the complainant for blood test in a reputed lab.  The complainant decided to have the blood test at Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre Lab (DDRC) due to its goodwill and reputation known to the complainant.  With this in mind, the complainant searched and noticed a lab bearing short form name DDRC which is the second opposite party in this complaint.  Genuinely believing that DDRC stood for Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre, the complainant stepped in and enquired whether it is Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre.  Immediately, the staff of the second opposite party and the first opposite party suppressing the true facts stated it to be the lab, which the complainant was searching for. 

                   3. The first opposite party made the complainant to believe that the second opposite party run by the first opposite party is the real DDRC with an ulterior motive of cheating the complainant from the very beginning and to make unlawful gain for himself and loss to the complainant.  By fraudulent misrepresentation, the first opposite party conducted the blood test of the complainant on 13.09.2002 in the lab of the second opposite party and collected ` 410 as testing fees.  The complainant collected the report and brought it to the concerned doctor.  After examining the test report, the doctor being dissatisfied as the result of the test is not correct when compared to the health condition of the complainant and asked the complainant to undergo a fresh blood test in a reputed and established lab, thereby the complainant realised that the test report issued was that of Delmon Diagnostic & Research Centre and not by the real DDRC.  With the urgency of the need to conduct a fresh blood test, the complainant had to borrow money and after sufficient enquiry spotted out the real DDRC and had the blood test conducted there for ` 380.  On the basis of the correct test report, the complainant underwent treatment and has been completely cured from her disease. If the complainant relied on the report of the opposite parties and got treatment, the complainant would have met with sudden death.  According to the complainant, the opposite parties misguided the complainant by mis-representation and given a false test report without conducting proper test and charged excess amount as testing fees.  All the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realisation of ` 1,06,000 from the opposite parties under various heads for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.

                   4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed their version with the following contentions:         Opposite parties denied all the allegations raised by the complainant.  The staff of the opposite parties never stated to the complainant that the second opposite party is Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre.  The second opposite party is doing the work with valid authority and the first opposite party is a qualified technician to do the work and the second opposite party lab is fully equipped with all required equipments.  This complaint is a false complaint and an henious attempt by business rivals with the help of the complainant.  There is no mistake in the test conducted by the opposite parties and the charge levied is also not on higher rates.  Any difference in the test result by another laboratory may be due to any other reasons.  Opposite parties verified and found that the complainant subjected to laboratory test before Delmon Diagnostic & Research Centre as well as before Modern Medical Laboratory and obtained reports and bills.  The bill of one lab and the report of another lab are used for filing this case.  Opposite parties have doubt about the identify of the person subjected to the lab test before the opposite parties and the complainant herein is one and the same person or not.  It is admitted that the complainant is subjected for laboratory test with the opposite parties and paid the charges on receipt of the report.  The first opposite party is a qualified technician and the second opposite party is having valid licence and the test report issued by the opposite party is correct and the charges levied is normal and they have not misguided the complainant by mis-representation and hence they have not committed any deficiency or unfair trade practice and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief prayed for in the complaint.  With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.

                   5. The third opposite party is exparte.

                   6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint is allowable or not?

                   7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PWs.1 to 3, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A14 and Exts.B1 to B18.  After closure of evidence, both sides were heards.

                   8. The Point:  The complainant’s allegation against the opposite parties can be summarised as follows: 

(a)             The opposite parties give an impression to the complainant that the opposite parties are the Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre (DDRC)?

(b)             The lab test report issued by the opposite parties is without conducting proper test and it is a false report showing that the complainant is having no ailments and if the said test report is a relied, the complainant would have been died?

(c)              The charges levied for the lab test is ` 410 which is higher than the normal rate?

According to the complainant, the above said acts of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby the complainant had lost money and sustained mental agony and other sufferings.

                   9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit and produced 13 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavits, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A13.  2 witnesses were also examined as PWs.2 and 3 for the complainant.  Ext.A14 is marked through PW2.  Ext.A1 is the copy of notice dated 23.10.2004 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party.  Ext.A2 is the cash bill dated 13.09.2004 for ` 410 issued by the third opposite party in favour of the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the copy of lab test report dated 13.09.2004 issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A4 (2 pages) is the test reports dated 14.09.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A5 is the discharge card dated 28.09.2004 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in respect of the complainant’s treatment from 14.09.2004 to 28.09.2004.  Ext.A6 is the notice to the third opposite party vide paper publication in Southern Star Daily dated 25.09.2005.  Ext.A6(a) is the bill dated 30.09.2005 for ` 500 issued by Southern Star for publishing Ext.A6.  Ext.A7 is the prescription for lab investigation dated 20.09.2004 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Exts.A8 and A9 are the Ultrasound Scanning report and its picture dated 24.09.2004 issued from Travancore Scan Diagnostic Centre, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.A10 is the lab test result dated 27.09.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A11 is the doctor’s prescription dated 13.10.2004 issued by Dr. O.S. Syamsundar M.D., General Medicine, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A12 is the lab test result dated 13.10.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A13 is the lab test result report dated 16.11.2004 issued by Modern Diagnostic Centre, Kottayam in the name of the complainant.  Ext.A14 is the copy of the case sheet issued by General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in respect of the complainant’s treatment from 14.09.2004.

                   10. The opposite parties’ contention is that they have qualified technicians with proper equipments and the test result given to the complainant is true and correct.  They never misguided the complainant by mis-representing its name as Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre.  The fees charged for the test is normal.  Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre is behind the complainant and this complaint is filed for tarnishing the reputation of the opposite parties.  The cash bill and the lab report submitted by the complainant is of different organisation.  Almost all the documents submitted by the complainant is fabricated.  According to the complainant, she was admitted at the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 13.09.2004.  But as per the records, she was admitted there only on 14.09.2004.  The test report dated 14.09.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre in 2 pages is also a fabricated documents as the title seen on the 2 pages are different and in the 2 pages, different persons have put their signature and it is not a single report.  All the above said differences and discrepancies itself shows that this complaint is without any bonafides. 

                   11. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit and brought 18 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, the first opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents brought were marked as Exts.B1 to B18.  Exts.B1 and B2 were marked through PW2 and Exts.B3 to B18 were marked through DW1.  Ext.B1 is the Outpatient ticket dated 14.09.2004 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.B2 is the photocopy of Ext.B1 wherein the printed portion of Ext.B1 is only seen.  Ext.B3 is the letter-dated 05.05.2007 issued from District Medical Officer (Health), Pathanamthitta to the first opposite party attached with copy of outpatient register dated 13.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B4 is the photocopy of the O.P. register dated 13.09.2004.  Ext.B5 is the photocopy of the Casualty Register dated 13.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B6 is the photocopy of the Casulty Register dated 14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B7 is the photocopy of the inpatient register dated 14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B8 is the photocopy of the Doctors’ Day Duty Attendance Register dated 13.09.2004 and 14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B9 is the photocopy of the Doctors’ Night Duty Register dated 14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B10 is photocopy of the Doctors’ attendance register for the month of September, 2004.  Ext.B11 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW3 in C.C.100/05 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B12 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in C.C.100/05 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B13 is the certified copy of the deposition of PW2  in C.C.100/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.B14 is the photocopy of the complaint filed by the complainant herein as the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta under Sec.156(3) Cr.PC.  Ext.B15 is the letter-dated 17.09.2009 from the Public Information Officer, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta to the first opposite party.  Ext.B16 is the reply letter dated 17.08.2009 from the Public Information Officer, District Medical Officer (Health), Pathanamthitta to the first opposite party.  Ext.B17 is the lab requisition chit dated 13.09.2004 issued by Dr. O.S. Syam Sunder, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.  Ext.B18 is the photocopy of the prescription chit dated 13.09.2004 issued by Dr. O.S. Syam Sunder in the name of Molykutty.          

                   12. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record.  As per Ext.A1 suit notice, complaint and proof affidavit of the complainant her case is that she had admitted in General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 13.9.04.  But as per the hospital records produced by the opposite parties the complainant is not seen admitted in the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 13.9.04.  Later in cross-examination, the complainant deposed that an O.P ticket was taken for the complainant on 13.9.04 by her husband and she had consulted the doctor on that day after 3 p.m at the doctor’s residence.  But as per Ext.B3, the copy of the O.P register for 13.9.04, no O.P card was seen issued in the name of the complainant.

                     13. From the side of the opposite parties, an O.P card in the name of the complainant brought from the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta which was marked as Ext.B1 through PW2.  The number of Ext.B1 is 31286 and its date is 14.9.04.  But as per Ext.B4 no such O.P card is not seen issued on 14.9.04.  So the complainant’s contention that she was admitted in the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 13.9.04 is not sustainable and the inconsistence and the contradictions seen in the above referred hospital records casts serious doubts whether the complainant had undergone any treatment in the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

                   14. The other contention of the complainant is that opposite parties made her to believe that the opposite parties are the Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre by misrepresentation.  But the deposition of the complainant/PW1 does not substantiate above allegations.  In cross-examination, she deposed as follows:- “F\n¡v Pre-degree hnZym`ymkw D­v.  English FgpXm\pw hmbn¨p a\em¡m\pw Adnbmw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Delmon Diagnostic & Research Centre- Dw Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre- Dw \n§#161;v Adnbmtam?” (QF) “Adnbmw”.  Delmon- BWv Rm³ test-\v t]mbXv. Doctors Diagnostic Centre Adnbmw.. . . . . . . . . . . “Delmon Diagnostic & Research Centre DDRC F¶mWv Adnbs¸Sp¶Xv F¶dnbmtam” (QF) “AdnbnÔ.  Since the complainant had pre-degree qualification and she is capable of writing, reading and understanding English and she knows both Delmon Diagnosis & Research Centre and Doctos Diagnostic & Research Centre, her allegation of misrepresentation is not sustainable.

                   15. The other contention that the opposite parties collected `410 from the complainant as lab charges and that charges is very high when compared to the charges of other labs.  But in this regard, the complainant had not adduced any evidence, oral or documentary or even she had failed to produce the Govt. approved rate, if any, for lab tests.  So the allegation regarding excess charge levied by the opposite party is also not sustainable.

                   16. The other allegation against the opposite party that the test report given by the opposite party vide Ext.A3 is false and it was given without conducting proper test.  According to the complainant, the test report given by Doctors Diagnostic and Research Centre is correct and her conclusion that Ext.A3 lab report is not correct is based on a comparison of Ext.A4 test report with Ext.A3 and on the basis of the opinion of her doctor.  Of course, on a perusal of Ext.A3 and A4 there are some differences in the counts noted in Ext.A3 and A4.  The complainant and PW2 admitted in cross-examination, as per Ext.A3 also the result is positive.  If the result in Ext.A3 was negative, the situation would have been different.  According to opposite parties, the complainant was subjected for blood test after 24 hours from the first lab test and variations are natural and it varies from lab to lab.  This was also admitted by PW2 in his deposition, which is as follows:- “Bilerubin-sâ normal value-\v lab A\pkcn¨v hyXymkw hcmw ”.  In this case, the complaint has not adduced any evidence to prove that the variation to the counts to the extent of Ext.A4 will not occur within 24 hours and the counts noted in Ext.A3 does not require treatment.  The discrepancies seen in the medical records and the request of the complainant to the General Hospital, Pathanamthitta that any information regarding the treatment of the complainant at General Hospital, Pathanamthitta should not be furnished to anybody, as evident from Ext.B15. As per Ext.A14 entries, complainant was not seen in the hospital on 17.09.2004.  No entries seen in the temparature chart.  Complainant’s presence or her treatment in the hospital from 24.09.2004 to 28.09.2004 is not seen recorded in the case sheet though she was an inpatient in the hospital from 14.09.2004 to 28.09.2004. All the above said facts and circumstances of this case casts serious doubts about the bonafides of the complainant in filing this complaint.  In view of the above facts, there is a chance for filing this complaint by the complainant by the instigation of Doctors Diagnostic & Research Centre as alleged by the opposite parties from the very beginning of this case.  There is no satisfactory explanation from the side of the complainant for her request to the General Hospital authorities requesting him not to furnish any information to others regarding her treatment.  We feel that the complainant is afraid of disclosing about her treatment to others.  Complainants above said apprehension, the discrepancies in the medical records, the difference between the date of admission as per complaint and medical records etc. leads us to a presumption that the complainant is only a weapon in the hands of some others who are in enimical terms with opposite parties.

           17. On the basis of the above said discussions and from the over all facts and circumstances of this case, we find that this complaint is without bonafides and is not allowable and hence we find no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.  Therefore, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          18. In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Declared in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of September, 2010.

                                                                                          (Sd/-)

                                                                                    Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                      (President)

Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member)              :         (Sd/-)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)                 :         (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :         Mollykutty Rajan.       

PW2  :         Dr. Syam Sunder. O.S.

PW3  :         Lt.Col. P.K. Kumar (Retired).       

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1     :         Copy of notice dated 23.10.2004 issued by the complainant to

                     the first opposite party.

A2     :         Cash bill dated 13.09.2004 for ``410 issued by third opposite

                     party in favour of the complainant.

A3     :         Copy of lab test report dated 13.09.2004 issued by the first

                     opposite party in the name of the complainant.

A4     :         Test result reports dated 14.09.2004 issued by Doctors

                     Diagnostic and Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of

                     the complainant.

A5     :         Discharge card dated 28.09.2004 issued from General Hospital,

                     Pathanamthitta in respect of the treatment from 14.09.2004 to

                     28.09.2004. 

A6     :         Notice to the third opposite party vide paper publication in

                    Southern Star Daily dated 25.09.2005.

A6(a):         Bill dated 30.09.2005 for ` 500 issued by Southern Star.

A7     :         Prescription for lab investigation dated 20.09.2004 issued from

                     General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the

                     complainant.

A8 & A9:   Ultrasound Scanning report and its picture dated 24.09.2004

                     issued from Travancore Scan Diagnostic Centre,

                     Pathanamthitta.

A10   :         Lab test result dated 27.09.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic &

                    Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of the  

                     complainant.

A11   :         Doctor’s prescription dated 13.10.2004 issued by Dr. O.S.

                      Syamsundar M.D., General Medicine, General Hospital,

                     Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.

A12   :         Lab test result dated 13.10.2004 issued by Doctors Diagnostic

                     and Research Centre, Pathanamthitta in the name of the

                     complainant.

A13   :         Lab test result report dated 16.11.2004 issued by Modern

                    Diagnostic Centre, Kottayam in the name of the complainant.

A14   :         Copy of the case sheet issued by General Hospital,

                    Pathanamthitta in respect of the complainant’s treatment from

                    14.09.2004.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 :         Sivadas. K.N.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1     :         Outpatient ticket dated 14.09.2004 issued from General

                     Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the complainant.

B2     :         Photocopy of Ext.B1 outpatient ticket dated 14.09.2004.

B3     :         Letter dated 05.05.2007 issued from District Medical Officer

                     (Health), Pathanamthitta to the first opposite party attached

                     with copy of outpatient register dated 13.09.2004.

B4     :         Photocopy of the O.P. register dated 13.09.2004.

B5     :         Photocopy of the Casualty Register dated 13.09.2004 of General

                     Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

B6     :         Photocopy of the Casulty Register dated 14.09.2004 of General

                     Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

B7     :         Photocopy of the inpatient register dated 14.09.2004 of General

                     Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

B8     :         Photocopy of the Doctors’ Day Duty Attendance Register dated

                    13.09.2004 and 14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

B9     :         Photocopy of the Doctors’ Night Duty Register dated

                     14.09.2004 of General Hospital, Pathanamthitta.

B10   :         Photocopy of the Doctors’ attendance register for the month of

                      September, 2004.

B11   :         Certified copy of the deposition of PW3 in C.C.100/05 of the

                      Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.

B12   :         Certified copy of the deposition of PW1 in C.C.100/05 of the

                      Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.

B13   :         Certified copy of the deposition of PW2  in C.C.100/2005 of

                      Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta.

B14   :         Photocopy of the complaint filed by the complainant herein as

                     the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,

                     Pathanamthitta under Sec.156(3) Cr.PC.

B15   :         Letter dated 17.09.2009 from the Public Information Officer,

                     General Hospital, Pathanamthitta to the first opposite party.

B16   :         Reply letter dated 17.08.2009 from the Public Information

                     Officer, District Medical Officer (Health), Pathanamthitta to the  

                     first opposite party.

B17   :         Lab requisition chit dated 13.09.2004 issued by Dr. O.S. Syam

                     Sunder, General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the

                     complainant. 

B18   :         Photocopy of the prescription chit dated 13.09.2004 issued by     

                     Dr. O.S. Syam Sunder in the name of Molykutty.

                                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                     Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) Mollykutty, Moonuthundil House, Thumpamon P.O.,

                       Pathanamthitta.      

(2) Mr. K.N. Sivadas, Lab Technician, Delmon Diagnostic & Research Centre (DDRC) & Modern Medical Laboratory,

            Pathanamthitta.

(3) Proprietor, Delmon Diagnostic & Research  Centre (DDRC), 

     Pathanamthitta.

(4) Proprietor, Modern Medical Laboratory, Pathanamthitta.

(5)  The Stock File.