Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

235/2014

S.Mumthaj Begam, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Aarthi scans, Rep by its Proprietor, - Opp.Party(s)

N.Palaniappan-com

21 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  09.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 21^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

 

C.C.NO.235/2014

 

 

 

S.Mumthaj Begam,

No.5/2, Padmanaba Nagar,

Main Road, Choolaimedu,

Chennai – 600 094.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Aarthi Scans,

Rep.by its Proprietor,

No.766, P.H.Road,

Kilpauk, (MRI),

Chennai – 600 010.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 16.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.N.Palaniappan

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : Dr.B.Cheran, M.Nagarethinam       

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is suffering from sugar complaint for the past five years and she is regularly taking treatment from a Diabetic and testing the sugar level periodically in the nearby local laboratories. For the past one month she is suffering from frequent urine during night time, she get urination nearly 7 to 8 times and thereby spent sleepless nights and her health was deterioration day by day Dr.Vasanthan, diabetic prescribed to test

1. USG Abdomen
2.  Glycosaluted Hb A1c
3.  Blood Sugar (F)
4.  Blood Sugar (PP).

On 10.09.2014 the complainant went to the opposite party clinic and paid a sum of Rs.1,550/- for the above tests. The opposite party after test provided result on 11.09.2014 with a fasting sugar level of 365 (F) mg/dl and post prandial sugar level of 578 mg/dl(pp). This abnormal sugar level had never noticed by the earlier occasions when the complainant checked in the local laboratories due to abnormal sugar level test the complainant suffered with mental agony and fear and urged her husband to consult another doctor. Accordingly on the advice of the doctor next day on 12.09.2014 they went to Lakshmi Clinical Labotatory, Vadapalani, Chennai -26 and tested her fasting sugar and the result is 199 mgs/dl. The doctor also conducted random blood test by his instrument which showed only 198 mgs/dl.

          2. It is to be noted that there is a discrepancy between the cash bill and the original report issued by the opposite party’s Clinical Laboratory. In the cash bill patients I.D. No. is referred as 0600016625 whereas in the original report patient I.D.No is referred as P0612169. Moreover in the cash bill the S.I.D No is referred as 06015165 and in the original report the SID No. is referred as 057546. The complainant states that there is a Medical Negligence not only in the medical report but also in making reference to PID No. as well as in SID No. The complainant submits that she is unable to make to which reference the PID No. and SID No. should be made with reference to this medical report and there is no possibility for the change of patients ID Number and SID number from one document to other document.

          3. The opposite party test result shown a difference of 165 mg/dl. which is highly condemned and no excuse for the opposite party negligent lethargic and careless attitude. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the complaint.      

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The results of the test performed on two different dates cannot be similar and cannot be compared. If at all can compare, the other test should also have been repeated to compare all. Hence no primafacie case made against the opposite parties. The complainant stated that she is taking tablet and insulin regularly and   the same was noted by the Dr.K.Vasanthan in his prescription. The complainant is suffering from urination day and night time is an indication that she is diabetic not under control and her blood sugar is high. Hence it is quite natural that her blood sugar is high. It is not true that the doctor advice only blood sugar and further the fasting sugar did not exceed 200 mg/dl for the past  eight months. Hb A1c is a test the average blood for the past three months i.e whether diabetic is control or not. Her Hb A1c was 13. Normally reading of Hb A1c 6 to 7 denotes good control and however, she has almost double the normal reading. Hence the complainant blood sugar level is 365 is accepted and reading of 200 is not possible.

          5. The Lakshmi Clinical Laboratory report did not mention the name of the doctor. Further the doctor tested her blood shown only 199 mg/dl was not supported any documents. SID number is generated in the branch which receives the sample. It differs between branch which had collected the same and the main branch which tested the blood. The last 5 digits of PID No. printed in the cash bill found next to the complainant name in the report and hence there is no confusion that sample belongs to Mrs.Mumtaj Begam. Further the report may vary depending on various factors that the nature of the food taken and tested on two different days.   Hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the complainant is a sugar patient and she had frequent urination during day and night hours and her doctor gave Ex.A1 prescription to undergo the following tests (a) USG Abdomen (b) Glycosaluted Hb A1c, and (c) Blood Sugar (F)  and d. Blood Sugar (PP) and accordingly she went  to the opposite party  to have those tests and she paid a sum of Rs.1,550/-  in Ex.A2 cash bill and gave blood sample and the opposite party after analysis issued Ex.A3 test report to the complainant.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiencies against the opposite parties is that the opposite party issued Ex.A3 report shown sugar level fasting is 365 mg/dl and post prandial level sugar is 578 mg/dl and such a sugar level was  very abnormal and the complainant never noticed on earlier occasion when she conducted tests in many local laboratory, further on the advice of doctor very next day on 12.09.2014 she went to the Lakshmi Clinical Laboratory and after test they issued Ex.A4  report that her fasting blood sugar was 199mg/dl and the doctor also tested random blood sugar level shown  as 198 mg/dl and further prior to this, she checked fast blood sugar eight months periodically and the level did not exceed 200mg and therefore the opposite party  has not conducted test properly and gave a  wrong and defective report to her  and further in the cash bill and report, the PID No. & SID No. are differs and therefore the report issued to the complainant is not that of her and thereby the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          9. The opposite party would contend that the sugar level tests report may vary depends upon the kind of food taken and volume of food taken and when the test sample taken on two different dates naturally the results will differ and further  SID No. is generated in the branches which receives the samples and the main branch tests the blood and however the last five digits of PID No printed in the cash bill also  printed next to the name of the complainant in the report and therefore the opposite party had furnished the report only based on the test results and hence no deficiency committed by the opposite party.

          10. According to the complainant the opposite party furnished Ex.A3 test report showing abnormal sugar level and previously she had tested for eight months and no point of time the blood sugar exceeded 200. In the very same report the average blood sugar level HbA1c shown as 13.0. It is further stated in that report with regard to HbA1c Non-Diabetic Level:< 6, Goal : <7, Action suggested:>8. Therefore from level 8, treatment is required. However, the complainant had HbA1c level 13 which is very high. Therefore such a level leads to the conclusion that she had more blood sugar. However, the complainant tested on the very next day, the fasting blood sugar was 199mg as per Ex.A4 and no report filed by her to show that the doctor tested random and shown 198. It is the specific case of the complainant that before testing the opposite party laboratory, she had tested for eight months in the local laboratories and none of the occasion the sugar level was exceeded 200 mg. The reports for the eight months have not been filed. In Ex.A4 the doctor name not found. Hence, Ex.A4 and the complainant tested for eight months and blood sugar level not exceeded 200 mg. has not been proved by the complainant.

          11. Further, normally the blood sugar level will reflect depends upon the kind of food and quantity of the food taken by the person. This fact was not denied by the complainant. Further, the complainant relied on Ex.A8 opinion of Doctor M.Abdual Kdhar to establish that the report issued by the opposite party is defective.  The said doctor stated in his opinion that “ for a patient who is on regular treatment from renowned diabetalogist and the previous periodical blood sugar test being under control,  the said blood sugar result showing abnormal raise is not feasible” and hence the report given by the Aarthi Scans to be re-considered.  As stated in the opinion the previous periodical sugar test reports are not filed. Hence the complainant has not established that the previous blood sugar test is under control. Further the diabetalogy is a special course and the doctor who gave the Ex.A8 opinion was only general surgeon and he cannot give special opinion with regard to sugar level and hence his opinion is rejected.

          12. Ex.A2 cash bill contains PID No. 0600016625 and SID No. 06015165.  Ex.A3 report mentions SID No.057546  and the patient ID No: P0612169. The opposite party would contend that the sample was received in the branch laboratory and tested in the main branch laboratory and that is why those numbers are differs. The last 5 digits 16625 of PID No. given in the cash bill found next to the name of the complainant in her report. Therefore, the PID No. given in cash bill and the report are one and the same. Further the sample was collected at the Kilpauk branch as per Ex.A2. The Ex.A3 report itself states that Sample Collected and Sent.  Hence only such a sent sample was tested in the main branch. Therefore as contended by the opposite party the SID No. was separately given in the branch collected the sample and main branch and that is why such a difference have arisen. However, the PID No. did not differ in both the cash bill and report and therefore the sample given by the complainant was only tested by the opposite party and Ex.A3 is issued and therefore no negligence was committed by the opposite party in testing and furnishing report to the complainant.

          13. In view of the forgoing discussions, it is held that the complainant has not proved that the opposite party committed deficiency and hence we hold that the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service.  

 

 

 

14. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st  day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.09.2014		Prescription issued by Dr.K.Vasanthan to the complainant
Ex.A2 dated 10.09.2014		Cash bill issued by the opposite party Clinical Laboratory time 07.44.05 with patient I.D.No.(PID) 0600016625 and SID No.06015165 to the complainant
Ex.A3 dated 10.09.2014		Test Report issued by the opposite party Specialty Laboratory to the complainant time 11:15 (received date) and reported date on 10.09.2014 time 16:21 with patient ID.No. (PID) P0612169 and SID No.057546
Ex.A4 dated 12.09.2014		Test Report issued by Lakshmi Clinical Laboratory, No.17, Gangaiamman Kovil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai – 600 026, with Ref.No.412/2014
Ex.A5 dated 09.07.2014		Test report issued by Prema Clinical Laboratory with Ref.No.2911/14
Ex.A6 dated 22.09.2014		Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A7 dated 09.10.2014		Reply notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A8 dated 12.02.2015	Medical certificate issued by Prof.Dr.M.Abdul          Kadar giving his opinion on this matter

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …….. NIL ……

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT