Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that op NCS Diagnostics made Ultrasonography of Upper Abdomen of the complainant on 04.09.2011 as per doctor’s advice and as per said USG report it was reported that there was a small target lesion in right lobe of liver” and after consulting and collecting such report he was again referred to NCS Diagnostics for FNAC test on 13.09.2011 and FNAC Test was also conducted by the op no.1 on 14.09.2011 and in the said report it was reported that “Smears are very cellular & show clusters as well as scattered pleorphic malignant cells”.                                                   

          That after aforesaid report, complainant consulted with another Dr. S. C. De and he recommended for the test of CT-SCAN of upper Abdomen in North City Diagnostic Centre Pvt. Ltd. and on 28.09.2011 the said CT-SCAN was conducted and it was reported that “lever is normal in shape, size, outlines, attenuation and contrast enhancement. Intrahepatic billary radicles are not enlarged.  No focal intrahepatic SOL noted”.  Thereafter for verification earlier tests so many tests were conducted at Quadra Medical Services Pvt Ltd & Eco Diagnostic Pathology at Kolkata and in fact for further satisfaction, complainant conducted all the tests from Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and in their view “Patient evaluated outside and one USG report was so small target lesion in Rt. Lobe of liver and choleithis, FNAC from that lesion was so metastasis from poorly different CA. CECT done the revealed no lesion in liver and slide review was done (1) Quadra Medical Service Kolkata showed presence of a typical cells admixed with hepatocytes, (2) SGPGI – no e/o malignancy showed.

          It is the case of the complainant that it is clear from the report of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow that complainant had no disease of any malignancy and in fact the tests were done at the laboratory of the op no.1 and the same test was done at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow.  But there is difference in respect of the two reports but as per ops report the op nos. 1 to 3 diagnosed malignancy.  But later test there was no malignancy as found from the report of Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and other laboratory.  So, on the basis of the wrong reports issued by NCS Diagnostics op no.1, complainant was badly harassed and further suffered pain and agony and also for further check-up to get positive answer whether he had been suffering from malignancy or not he spent huge amount.  So it is proved op nos. 1 to 3 submitted test report in negligent manner and for wrong diagnosis, complainant suffered much and for negligent and deficient manner in service of the ops, complainant has prayed for Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation.

          Subsequently on 17.02.2012 the complainant through his lawyer sent a letter with such document against that op no.2 through a letter dated 12.03.2012 through his Ld. Advocate admitted that test was conducted by the diagnostic centre of the

op no.1 and the op no.2 requested for subsequent reports of the complainant.  But as per requests of the op no.2, the complainant supplied the relevant reports vide letter dated 22.03.2012 to his Ld. Advocate of op no.2.  In the circumstances, the present case has been filed.

          On the other hand, the op no.1 by filing written objection submitted that USG of upper abdomen was done on 04.09.2011 and the report of the patient mentioned presence of multiple calculi in gall bladder and a small target lesion in right lobe of liver and since the target lesions in liver has different disgnosis.  So, it was no mentioned any definite diagnosis and adviced for FNAC test to confirm the nature of the lesion.  Thereafter patient came back on 13.09.2011 for FNAC and accordingly FNAC under USG test was performed by op no.2 who found the lesion with precision and slides were sent for cytological examination to Dr. Sayeed H. Nadeem and the report of FNAC showed “Metastatic poorly differentiated carcinoma of liver”.  While doming FNAC, lesion was located by the USG and it is specifically mentioned that the FNAC was generally accepted to be an efficient way of distinguishing benign from malignant processes, certain deficiencies or limitations are inherent to the technique itself.  There are evidences that false positive result can occur with FNAC and that does not tantamount for negligence per se and it is further submitted that everything was done with proper skill of advanced technique and NCS Diagnostic Centre with the help of medical experts prepared such report and in fact the report was not defective.  So, the allegation is false.  Op no.2 also submitted similar type of written version as filed by the op no.1.  But it is further submitted that op no.2 Dr. Kamal Oswal tested the patient to the best of their ability and skill without negligence and in fact for taking some medicines bodily change may cause due to hormonal effects of the body and bodily change effect to protect taken by the complainant.  Op no.3 also submitted similar written statement and op no.4 made ditto of the written version of the op nos. 1 to 3 and prayed for dismissal of the case.

                                                 Decision with reasons

          On proper study of the complaint including the written version and particularly the reports upon which the complainant relied, we have gathered that complainant a patient of Choleithis with chronic choleithis which is confirmed both by the op diagnostic centre and the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and from the report of the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow it is proved that complainant had been suffering from fever, jaundis pain and thereafter he took medicines after that he recovered and the present ops after testing and diagnosis found that presence of atypical cells admits to it hepacyts but when he was examined by the present Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow unremarkable lesion accepted Cholelithiasis.  Considering that fact it is clear that the patient was suffering from Choleithiasis and the diagnosis made by the ops are found to that effect are correct.  But only allegation of the complainant is regarding the FNAC test report conducted at NCS Diagnostic Centre and that report says that Smears are very cellular & show clusters as well as scattered pleorphic malignant cells.  No doubt it was not detected by Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and in between period of 02.12.2011 to 06.12.2011. because Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy was done under GA on 05.12.2011.  That means during continuation of the diagnosis several tests were done but might be for taking medicine some impression such as scattered pleorphic malignant cells were found and such sort of reading by the test machine of USG or other might be found in some cases because at the relevant time complainant was taking medicines.  But after operation when further test was done at Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lucknow everything was found O.K.  Now the main question whether the report was definite or not.  In this regard we have gone through the USG report of upper abdomen of the complainant dated 05.09.2011 being referred by Dr. R.N. Chakraborty.  But in respect of that report it is found that report was not otherwise defective or there was such apprehension that complainant was suffering from such type of diseases like Cholelithiasis.  When the Dr. Sayeed H. Nadeem Cisotologist and Histologist received the unstained slight and one stained slight representing for FNAC for the liver he opined that metastasis from poorly differentiate CA. CECT but specifically submitted by the doctor in the report as M.D. the above result relates to only the item tested and at the time of testing not after that.

          Fact remains that there is no such report issued by the op that he had been suffering from Cancer or any such type of disease but it was submitted that the ulceric reason were such a nature, it might be that it was a poorly nature of cercinama. Now the question is what is the Cercinoma.  In true sense Cercinoma means acute ulcers cells of which may cause cancer but from the report of FNAC and also considering the medicst books we have gathered that if any ulcer protein is found again and again it is suspected as cancerous (Cancer) but not always and from report from FNAC test it is clear the said doctors Cistologist or Histologist did not finally diagnose and reported that he was suffering from Cercinoma for which diagnostic report in respect of liver was metastasis from poorly differentiate Caecinoma and in fact Dr. S. H. Nadeem submitted his cytological report that was supplied.  But anyhow Dr. S.H. Nadeem has not submitted any report that he was confirmed that it was completely a Cercinoma.  Another factor is that the said report was signed on 14.09.2011.  Thereafter complainant did not meet the ops for any further queries or did not plead that the report is vexatious or false but he was under treatment of Dr. R.N. Chakraborty after that.  Thereafter a lapse of 15 or 20 days he was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow for surgical Gastrology Department for operation of Cholelithisistomy and Chato   was done on 15.11.2012 and thereafter there was no complaint.  So, it is clear that he was suffering from some chronic Cholelishisis which is proved and in fact during medication several times of impression appears which were being used for the purpose of FNAC or USG and fact remains it is the duty of the practicing doctor for verification.  But it is found that the complainant was under treatment of Dr. R.N. Chakraborty who referred for USG of upper abdomen and that was done and FNAC was done.  That reports were submitted to Dr. R.N. Chakraborty by the complainant but complainant did not report to the ops that their reports declared by the R.N. Chakraborty as erroneous.  Rather it is proved Dr. R.N. Chakraborty referred the patient for operation when he went to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow for operation for Cholecistotomy and that was done.  Then it is clear that Dr. R.N. Chakraborty never disclosed the report of the ops diagnosis was remarkable.  And no such complaint was made why Dr. R.N. Chakraborty in any prescription of the complaint and complainant has not produced any prescription also.  Further fact is that complainant has failed to prove by cogent evidence that he suffered for such report rather those reports were considered by the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow and they also relied and after diagnosis it was detected that it was not at all Cernicoma but it is acute Choleithisis.  Relying upon the above materials on record and also the documents as filed by the complainant that is Annexure- A, B & C, we are convinced to hold that complainant has withheld the documents issued by Dr. R.N. Chakraborty under whom he was continuously treated as patient and fact remains after successful operation and after his recovery the complainant filed his complaint for some purpose for getting some money.

          On comprehensive study of the entire materials on record including above findings and also the provision as laid down in the definition service of “C.P. Act and particular factor we are of opinion that third opinion ought to have been obtained to show out of the two which report is correct and at the same time there is practically no material to show that complainant has suffered any injury because of the first report of the present ops.  Moreover, there was a time gap of about 25 days and it is a matter to be mentioned that the consulting physician of the complainant did not prescribe any prescription after consulting the report of the ops that the said first report was completely baseless and that cannot be relied and further report is required to verify the veracity aforesaid of the first report of the present ops.

          Another factor is that complainant has failed to show that his doctor R.N. Chakraborty did not rely upon such report and advised him for checking two reports and further fact is that no treatment had been started on the basis of the report of the present ops and in view of the circumstances, this Forum is of opinion that in fact no further pathological tests report against in between the two reports are submitted to show that the first report was defective and in fact on the basis of the first report no treatment was done.  So, invariably complainant did suffer any loss but at best the complainant must have to prove that first report was completely baseless and without any foundation no loss is sustained by the complainant due to first report and also considering the pathological test of the ops we are confirmed that pathological test may vary from doctor to doctor because of difference of opinion regarding the present particular disease and for which three opinions are required and further any technical error of this pathological report has not caused any damage to the party and so ops cannot be accused of any liability and cannot be held guidelines or medically negligent.

          In support of our findings we are also relied upon the ruling reported in 2003 (2) CPJ 344 and also 2004(I) CPR 130 (WBSCDRC) and further we are of opinion that there is no allegation regarding administration of wrong treatment on the basis of the present report against the ops by the complainant and for which we are convinced to hold that there is no ground to allow this complaint as negligent, deficient manner of service when that has not been proved and at the same the liability of the ops cannot be attributed for the present medical report.

          In the result, the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                        ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed without any cost against the contesting ops.