Delhi

North East

CC/131/2021

Mr. D.K. Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Path Care Diagnostics/Path Care - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 131/21

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. D.K Jain R/o B-753, MIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road Delhi 110093		Complainant
		Versus
	1.                     2.             3.	Path Care Diagnostics/Path Care (A unit of path care labs Pvt. Ltd.) Through its Manager/Chairman/Owner Regd. Office and central lab; Survey No. 34, Beside Geetanali ER. College, Hyderabad 501301 Regional Office: Path Care, 1st Floor,  C-16, Near SBI, Sec 15, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad Also at: New Delhi Shahstri Park Etc.   Dr. B. Parvathi Devi Authorized Signatory of Path Care Diagnostics/ Path Care Regd Office: Office and Central Lab; Survey No. 34, Beside Geetanjili ER, College, Hyderabad 501301   Mr. Sonu Gupta Multispecialty Hospital, B-20, Vivek Vihar Phase I, Opposite Ram Mandir, VivekVihar Delhi 95   Also at: A23, Jagdamba Colony, Delhi 110094		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		23.09.2021 18.03.2024 25.06.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that his son contacted Opposite Party No. 3 who is working in Gupta Multispecialty Hospital in the Lab as an agent or using Hospital address as pick up point of Opposite Party No. 1, for the blood tests and Quantiferon TB Gold test of his father. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 3 along with one assistant reached at the residence of the complainant in order to collect the blood sample on 01.08.2020. The Complainant stated that after collecting the blood sample and receiving payment for these tests, after two days Opposite Party No. 3 delivered the report to the Complainant which shows the result as Negative. The Complainant stated that in order to confirm the test report he again got conducted the same test from Dr. Lal Path on 11.08.2020 and report was received on 13.08.2020 which shows the result Positive. The Complainant stated that the services of the Opposites Parties was very poor and not reliable and they are doing fraud with the patients after doing formal tests and making false reports just to gain. Complainant stated that even after charging such a heavy amount of money, Opposite Party did not conduct proper tests of the blood samples of the patients and gave false reports. On 28.09.2020, a legal notice was sent to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Party replied to the legal notice and denied all the facts of the complainant on flimsy ground. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 87,637/- i.e. the entire amount of the lab testing. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 1,50,000/- i.e. the extra cost of treatment due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed its common written statement. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. It is stated that Opposite Party No.3 is not an agent of Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that the blood sample of Complainant was received at the headquarters of the Opposite Party No.1 in Hyderabad on 03.08.20 for conducting the TB Gold Quatiferon Test. The test was conducted by using the best equipments and methodology. The subject sample tested Negative for TB. It is stated that the subject sample was transported to Opposite Party No.1 from PCL- DL-216 (Sinha Diagnostic Lab). The said sample was allegedly collected by Sh. Sonu i.e. Opposite Party No.3 on 01.08.20. It is stated that Opposite Party No.3 is neither an employee of Opposite Party No.1 nor he was trained by Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that the sample was not collected by the employee of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore the identity and quality of the subject sample cannot be established by the Opposite Party No.1.It is stated that the reports can be compared if sample istaken at the same time and the sample is split into two parts and further they are tested by same method. In the present case, the Complainant tested Positive in the report dated 13.08.20 issued by Lal Path Lab the sample for which was collected on 11.08.20. In the present case the sample of the Complainant was collected on 01.08.20 by Opposite Party No.3. It is stated that the incubation period for tuberculosis varies from approximately 2-12 weeks and during the incubation period tuberculosis cannot be detected. In the present case, the alleged sample was collected 11 days prior to the sample which was collected by Lal Path Lab and therefore the possibility that the first sample was collected during incubation period cannot be ruled out.
3. It is stated that in the comment section of the interpretation every report the limitations ofboth negative and positive test are clearly mentioned and reports are meant solely for a qualified physicians treating the patients to aid them in diagnosis in the light of clinical presentation of the patient. The subject test i.e. Quantiferon TB gold test assay uses an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to measure antigen-specific production of IFN-y by circulating T cells in whole blood. The test is therefore dependent upon presence of these cells in blood in the sample in adequate viable numbers to produce gamma interferon in adequate amounts to be detected in lab.It is stated the complaint is without any merit. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 3

4. The Opposite Party No. 3 contested the case and filed his written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any cause of actionagainst the Opposite Party No.3. It is stated that the Opposite Party No.3 is working in the lab of Gupta Multispecialty Hospital. It is stated that the son of the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.3 and asked about conducting the test i.e. Quantiferon TB Gold test. The Opposite Party No.3 denied for conducting the said test because he was neither authorised to conduct the test nor he was authorised to take the sample for the said test. The Opposite Party No.3 suggested the son of the Complainant that he can get the said test conducted from Path Care Lab Pvt. Ltd.It is stated that Opposite Party never went at the residence of Complainant for collecting the sample. Opposite Party No.3 has denied the allegations of the Complainant and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 

 

Rejoinder to the written statements of Opposite Parties

5. The Complainant filed rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

6. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed affidavit of his son Sh. Shanky Jain who has supported the case of the Complainant as mentioned in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

7. In order to prove their case, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 have filed affidavit of Dr. Pratap Patil, Deputy Director and Authorised Representative wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 have been supported.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 3

8. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 3 has filed his affidavit, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 3have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

9. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Parties. The case of the Complainant is that his son contacted Mr. Sonu i.e. Opposite Party No.3 for conducting Quantiferon TB Gold test. His case is that Mr. Sonu (Opposite Party No.3) is working in Gupta Multispecialty Hospital. His case is that Mr. Sonu along with one other person came to their residence on 01.08.20 for collecting the blood sample.After 2 days Mr. Sonu delivered the report with the result as Negative. His case is that in order to confirm the report of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant also got conducted the said test from Dr. Lal Path Lab on 11.08.20. The report of Dr. Lal Path Lab was received on 13.08.20 showing the test report as Positive. It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 has given a false and wrong report and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and 2.
10. The case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is that Opposite Party No.3 is not its agent or employee .It is their case that the testing is doneby highly qualified trained technicians and their work is supervised and verified by highly competent doctors. It is their case that the sample in question was transported to Opposite Party No.1 from PCL-DL-216 (Sinha Diagnostic Lab). It is their case that sample was not collected by employee of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore identity and quality of the subject sample cannot be established by the Opposite Party No.1. It is also their case that the samples can be compared only if taken at same time and split into two parts and also they are tested by same method. It is their case that the sample in question and the sample which was tested by Lal Path Lab were taken on different dates.
11.  The Case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that he was contacted by the son of the Complainant for conducting Quatiferon TB Gold test. He told the son of the Complainant that he was not qualified and competent to take the sample for the said test. His case is that he never visited the house of the Complainant for collecting the sample.
12. The case of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Mr. Sonu came to his residence for collecting sample for conducting Quantiferon TB Gold test. His case is that Mr. Sonu collected the sample on 01.08.20. The case of the Complainant is that Mr. Sonu is working in the lab of Gupta Multispecialty Hospital.  Now, the question is that whether Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Mr. Sonu has collected the blood sample of the Complainant on 01.08.20. In this regard the Complainant did not lead any cogent evidence to show thatsample was collected by Mr. Sonu on 01.08.20. Even the Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that said Mr. Sonu was competent or qualified to collect sample. In this regard, if we believe that Mr. Sonu was working with Gupta Multispecialty Hospitalthe Complainant would have verified from said Gupta Multispecialty Hospital that Mr. Sonu was qualified and competent to take sample. The Complainant has not did so. Further it is to be noted that the said sample was not sent to Opposite Party No.1 by Mr. Sonu or by Gupta Multispecialty Hospital. The said sample was sent to Opposite Party No.3 by PCL-DL-216 (Sinha Diagnostic Lab). How the blood sample reached the said PCL-DL-216. There is no evidence to show that said blood sample of Complainant was deposited with PCL-DL-216 by Mr. Sonu or by Gupta Multispecialty Hospital. Therefore under these circumstances, it is not established that the blood sample of the Complainant was collected by Opposite Party No.3 and the same was sent by him or by Gupta Multispecialty Hospital to the lab of Opposite Party No.1 for testing.
13.  The case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is that the Opposite Party No.3 is not an employee of Opposite Party No.1 and therefore the identity and quality of the blood sample could not be established. In the present case as discussed above the Complainant has failed to establish that the blood sample was collected by Opposite Party No.3 and the same was transmitted by him to Opposite Party No.1, therefore we are of the opinion that identity and quality of the blood sample cannot be established.
14. Further the case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is that the test repots can be compared if the sample is taken at the same time and it is further split into two parts and further they are tested by using the same methodology. Admittedly, the sample which was tested by Opposite Party No.1 and the sample which was tested by Lal Path Lab were taken on different dates. One sample was taken on 01.08.20 and the other was taken on 11.08.20. The Complainant did not lead any evidence to rebut the said assertions.
15. Further, the case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is that there are certain limitations to the interpretation of the test report whether it is positive or negative and the same are mentioned in the reports. The perusal of the test report given by Opposite Party No.1 of the Complainant shows the report of Quatiferon TB gold test as Negative. The report of the said test cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of the disease for the reason which is mentioned in the said report. It is  mentioned in the said report which is reproduced under:

A negative result does not preclude the possibility of M tuberculosis infection or Tuberculosis disease:false-negative results can be due to stage of infection (e.g. specimen obtained prior to the development of cellular immune response), Co-morbid conditions which affect immune function, other immunological variables.

 

16.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his case. The complaint is dismissed.
17. Order announced on 25.06.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)       Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President