Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

240/2014

M.Backiyalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Geminiscans(p) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M.Backiyalakshmi

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  10.12.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  12.10.2017

 

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

     

                            THURSDAY THE 12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.240/2014

 

 

 

M.Backiyalakshmi,

W/o.Muruganandham,

No.521, Kalaivanar Nagar,

Athipet, Ambattur, Chennai – 58.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Gemini Scans (P) Ltd.,

No.1236,

Golden Colony First Street,

Anna Nagar West Extn.,

Mogappair , Chennai – 600 050.

 

2. M/s. Medall Precision Diagnostics,

No.191, Poonamallee High Road,

Chennai – 600 010.

 

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.12.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. V.Balaji

Counsel for 1st Opposite Party                : M/s.S.A.Gandhi, R.Nepoliyan

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                      : Srinath Sridevan, T.K.Bhaskar,

                                                                    K.Harishankar (Ex-parte on 19.07.2016)                                                      

 

O R D E R

 

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

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay loss of income, medical expenses and 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 a married women and she has a son aged about 3 years. Till March 2014 she did not have any health problem. During the first week of March, 2014, the Complainant was conceived and she was 20 days pregnant at that time. Due to financial problem she wanted to terminate the pregnancy. Hence, she took Mifepristone and Misoprostol tablets to terminate her pregnancy. After some times the Complainant got developed pelvic pain with bleeding. On 07.03.2014, the Complainant consulted Dr.C.Meenambal, who referred her to the 1^st Opposite Party for taking U.S.G. pelvis scan test.

          The 1^st Opposite Party conducted the test and gave impression as follows:

1. Moving internal echoes are visualized within the endometrial cavity – suggestive of blood echoes.
2.  No evidence of retained products of conception which was certified and signed by the 1^st opposite party Doctor A.Parveen.MBBS.,M.Sc. Diag.USG Sonologist.

Even after the test the Complainant had profuse bleeding. The Complainant went to her native place and consulted a doctor.  Even after return to Chennai, she had bleeding and again consulted Dr.Meenambal on 09.04.2014 and Dr.Esthar Isaac on 17.04.2014.

          2. On the referral by the Dr. Esther Isac the Complainant went to the 2^nd Opposite Party diagnostics centre on 18.04.2014 and undergone scan test. The scan report of the 2^nd Opposite Party given impression in the report that there is “retained products of Conception” therefore the impression given by the 2^nd Opposite Party is directly Opposite to the impression given by the 1^st Opposite Party regarding the health condition of the Complainant. Hence the 1^st Opposite Party committed medical negligence and hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 23.05.2014 and for which the 1^st Opposite Party gave a reply dated 28.05.2014. Therefore the 1^st Opposite Party given impression that there is “no retained products of conception” is deficiency in service on his part. The complainant   underwent test and acumination at the Teja Hospital, Ambattur and therefore she was advised for one month rest which has resulted lot of mental agony to the Complainant.

          3. During the period of 07.03.2014  to 18.04.2014 and due to the negligent and incorrect report furnished by the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant  suffered with mental agony and she could not puruse her advocate profession and resulting the loss of income of Rs.3,00,000/- during that period and she also spent medical  expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay loss of income, medical expenses and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.    

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party specifically denies the averments that the Complainant was 20 days of pregnant during the first week of March, 2014. The Complainant had not presented any material on record in support her case that she was 20 days pregnant as on 07.03.2014 and also not produced single documents to prove her LMP, based on that only the first trimester could find out. This Opposite Party has not been negligent to any extent in diagnosing the Complainant. On the prescription issued by the Complainant’s physician, this Opposite Party’s Sonologist examined the Complainant and given the report on 07.03.2014. To diagnose the pregnancy is the combination of clinical findings, HCG value test and other diagnostic test and scan report. Before referring to scan, the physician has to advice the patient to undergo the HCG test which would give positive result, if one gets pregnancy. In this case, the Complainant has not given any details whether she undergone the HCG test. This Opposite Party states that the physician who given the treatment to the Complainant is a necessary parties to this proceedings and the Complainant failed to implead her as one of the Opposite Party to this proceedings and on this score alone the Complaint is liable to be rejected.

5. The Complainant was diagnosed by the 1^st Opposite Party on 07.03.2014 and further she was diagnosed by the 2^nd Opposite Party on 18.04.2014. There was 42 days differences from the first diagnose by the first Opposite Party and therefore the result may show a discrepancy. This Opposite Party given the report based on actual image calculations on 07.03.2014 and it may differ from report as on 18.04.2014. Hence there is no medical negligence on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant conveniently failed to produce her case sheet and doctor’s prescription for scan which will clearly shows the actual LMP of the Complainant, without those documents this Opposite Party cannot blamed for negligence of service.  This Opposite Party further states that comparing the two scan report taken on 07.03.2014 and 18.04.2014 itself wrong and the possibility of diagnosing the baby in her 8^th week is easier and each day will count.  This Opposite Party had given finality to the test by stating that “no retained products found”. The alleged period of treatment, medical expenses and income are not admitted. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

6. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 2^nd Opposite Party appears to have been impleaded as an Opposite Party only by reason of the fact that it had issued a report dt.18.04.2014 to the Complainant, which the Complainant seeks to rely on in her case against the 1^st Opposite Party. As such, the 2^nd Opposite Party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the present proceedings. The 2^nd Opposite Party is neither privy  nor has any knowledge of the averments made by the Complainant pertaining to the 1^st Opposite Party and as such, the 2^nd Opposite Party does not wish to make any comments as to any of these averments. This Opposite Party admits that the Complainant came to their Kilpauk Centre and undergone transvaginal ultrasound Scan on 18.04.2014 and he had also furnished the report to the Complainant. There is no defect found by the Complainant in the 2^nd Opposite Party report and hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

 

7. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

8. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant went to the Dr. Meenambal on 07.03.2014 regarding her pregnancy and in turn she referred the Complainant to undergo transvaginal scan with the 1^st Opposite Party and on the same day the Complainant went to the 1^st Opposite Party/Jemini Scans and the test was also carried out and Ex.A1 report handed over by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant and in that report the impression given as “No evidence of retained product of conception” and thereafter the Complainant went to her native place and consulted a doctor Maheshwari Mathiyazhagan and she prescribed medicines as per Ex.A2 and on return to Chennai again she consulted the doctor Meenambal  on 09.04.2014 and she prescribed tablet T.Trapic MF  for six days under Ex.A3 and thereafter on 17.04.2014 she had consulted Dr.Esther Isaac  on 17.04.2014 and on her advice she went to the 2^nd Opposite Party diagnostic centre undergone transvaginal  Scan and Ex.A7 report was given to her with the impression “retained product of conception” and thereafter the Complainant gave Ex.A12 notice to the 1^st Opposite Party for the deficiency committed by him and the  said notice was replied by the 1^st Opposite Party under Ex.A14 and thereafter the Complainant had filed this present Complaint. The complainant issued Ex.A12 notice to the 1^st opposite party  and he gave Ex.A14 reply that

        “You did not visit us for further scans and did a follow up scan elsewhere at a later date (18.04.2014) to demonstrate the retained products”.

Ex.A1 is the scan report of the 1^st opposite party. Nowhere in that report the 1^st opposite party mentioned that the complainant should visit for the further scans as follow up. In such circumstances the complainant did not visit for follow up scan and such stand of the 1^st opposite party will not stand.

          9. The complainant alleged deficiency against the 1^st opposite party is that on the advice of the Dr.Meenambal she went to the 1^st opposite party on 07.03.2014 to undergo a scan test  and after taking scan the 1^st opposite party furnished Ex.A1 scan report with an impression that “no evidence of retained product of conception” and thereafter the complainant was having continuous bleeding  and after  consulting few doctors then she went to doctor Mrs.Esthar Isaac on 17.04.2014 and she prescribed Ex.A6 medicine and also on her advice she went to the 2^nd opposite party on 18.04.2014 and taken a scan test and they furnished Ex.A7 scan report with an impression that “retained product of conception” and therefore the 1^st opposite party has wrongly gave Ex.A1 scan report that there is “no evidence of retained product of conception”  is deficiency committed by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

          10. The case of the complainant is that she had a 3 years old child and she had last menstruation (LMP) period on 15.01.2014 as noted at page – 9 of Ex.A6 she was conceived 20 days pregnancy  and during March 2014  and in view family circumstances and she already had a child, she wanted to terminate her pregnancy and hence she consumed Mifepristone and Misoprostol tablet to terminate the pregnancy  and she had developed Pelvis Scan with vaginal bleeding. Hence she went to Dr.Meenambal on 07.03.2014 and on her advice she underwent a Pelvis Scan test at the 1^st opposite party scan centre. Accordingly on the same day the complainant took a scan and also she was furnished with Ex.A1 report by the 1^st opposite party. The impression given in that report is that “No evidence of retained product of conception” i.e she has no symptom of pregnancy at the time. However, subsequently when she went to her native place she went to Dr Maheswari Mathyazhagan and she gave Ex.A2 prescription to the complainant to stop bleeding. However she continues to have bleeding, hence on return to Chennai again she consulted Dr.Meenambal on 09.04.204 and she prescribed tablet in Ex.A3 prescription to stop bleeding. Since she continues to have bleeding she went to Dr.Esthar Isaac on 17.04.2014   and she prescribed tablet in Ex.A6 prescription and she also referred her to the 2^nd opposite party to undergo a scan test. Accordingly the complainant under gone scan test at the 2^nd opposite party diagnosed centre on 18.04.2014. They took scan and also furnished Ex.A7 scan report with an impression that “retained product of conception” i.e she is pregnant.

          11. The complainant would contend that the 1^st scan report taken by the 1^st opposite party furnished Ex.A1 wrong report that there is no “retained product of conception” and therefore the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          12. Admittedly the Ex.A7 report is against the report of the Ex.A1. The complainant stated to Dr.Esthar Isaac that her last menstruation period on 15.01.2014 and the same was recorded at page – 9 of the Ex.A6 and apart from that the impression has given in the Ex.A1 by the 1^st opposite parties and the complaints bleeding by the complainant and she had child are all recorded at page – 9. The 1^st opposite party would contend that there is no evidence for the lost menstruation period which was recorded as page – 9 and the same cannot be accepted without proof. Only a lady can say about her LMP and none other can say about the same. Therefore the LMP on 15.01.2014 to the complainant is accepted.

          13. The 1^st opposite party would contend that the complainant had taken self medication and there is no evidence that such tablet will terminate the pregnancy and therefore the complainant case cannot be accepted. The complainant has specifically given the table names as Mifepristone Misoprostol consumed and to terminate her pregnancy. According to her the said tablet will terminate the pregnancy. There is no contra of evidence on behalf of the 1^st opposite party  that such tablet will not terminate the pregnancy. The complainant is a lawyer. Therefore she knows the consequences about self medication. Hence there is no reason to reject the case of the complainant that the tablet consumed by her will not terminate her pregnancy.

          14. The next argument of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant has   underwent DNC and such a report has not been filed before this Forum and who has done the DNC is not known and therefore her case is to be rejected.

          15. The 1^st opposite party gave Ex.A1 wrong report to the complainant and subsequent report Ex.A7 establishes that she has “retained product of conception”. By virtue of Ex.A7 report, it is clear that Ex.A1 is a wrong report. In such circumstances the complainant has not filed the DNC  report cannot be a reason to reject the case of the complainant.  

          16. The complainant would contend that the 1^st opposite party not only gave a wrong report and the scan test done by Dr. A.Parveen is not a recognized  Radiologist by the medical council of India and he cannot do such a trans vaginal scan test and further Ex.A1 reveals at the right top of the  document qualified radiologists names were printed  and when the qualified radiologists available why an  unqualified  doctor conducted test on the complainant and furnished wrong report is deficiency on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant would further contend that for the Radiologist, only two courses i.e “M.D & Diploma, D.M.R.E” available and  Dr.A.Parveen did not undergo any one of the two courses and therefore she is not a qualified radiologist.

17. As contended by the complainant the radiologist mentioned on the right top of Ex.A1 which was furnished by the 1^st opposite party himself have stated courses M.D & Diploma D.M.R.E. Dr.A.Parveen who furnished the report has not undergone any one of the above said course. Therefore, as contended by the complainant, the 1^st opposite party Dr.A.Parveen is not a qualified radiologist and therefore the Ex.A1 report furnished by him is a wrong report and hence we hold the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency in service and furnishing Ex.A1 defective report to the complainant. 

18. POINT NO:2

           Due to the defective medical report furnished to the complainant, she had suffered with mental agony is accepted. The complainant claimed compensation on different heading that loss of income, towards medical treatment and mental agony. Admittedly the complainant is an Advocate. Nowhere had she pleaded that what was her monthly income and what is the period that she had not practiced, has not been pleaded in the complaint. Therefore it is held the complainant has not proved her loss income and hence she is not entitled for any loss of income. The complainant claimed medical expenses as she had spent purchasing medicines in Ex.A4, Ex.A9, Ex.A11 and also spent amount for scan test under Ex.A8. She totally spent amount for Rs. 1,787.30 rounded 1,787/-  and such amount she is entitled from 1^st opposite party. The complainant as an Advocate she suffered with mental agony due to wrong report and hence it would be appropriate to direct the 1^st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum a Rs.2,500/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,787/- (Rupees one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven only)  to the complainant towards  medical   expenses  and  also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only)  towards litigation expenses. No relief sought against the 2^nd opposite party.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th day of October 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 07.03.2014                   Xerox copy of the Scan Report given by the 1^st

                                                    Opposite Party M/s. Gemini Scans (P) Ltd.,   

 

Ex.A2 dated 06.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Prescription given by the

                                                    Dr.Mageswari Mathiyazhagan

 

Ex.A3 dated 09.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Prescription given by the

                                                    Dr.Meenambal

 

 

Ex.A4 dated 09.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Medical bill was prescribed by

                                                    the Dr.Meenambal

Ex.A5 dated 12.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Prescription given by the

                                                    Dr.Meenambal

Ex.A6 dated 17.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Prescription given by the

                                                    Dr.Esther Isacc

Ex.A7 dated 18.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Scan Report given by the 2^nd

                                                    Opposite Party M/s. Medall Precision Diagnostics

Ex.A8 dated 18.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Receipt given by the 2^nd

                                                    Opposite Party M/s. Medall Precision Diagnostics

Ex.A9 dated 19.04.2014                   Xerox copy of the Prescription given by the

                                                    Dr.Sarojini, Teja Hospital

Ex.A10 dated 19.04.2014                 Xerox copy of the Test and receipt given by the

                                                    Teja hospital for Hemoglobin test

Ex.A11 dated 19.04.2014                 Xerox copy of the receipt given by the Teja

                                                    Hospital

Ex.A12 dated 23.05.2014                 Notice  given by the Complainant to the first

                                                    Opposite Party

Ex.A13 dated NIL                             Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A14 dated 28.05.2014                 Reply notice by the 1^st Opposite Party to the

                                                    Complainant

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY 1^st THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

                                      …….NIL ……..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT