The petitioner, Sribas Bhowmick has filed the instant case on behalf of his minor son Sridip Bhowmick against, Proprietor, Head of the Centre, Central Pathology, Central Nursing Home herein OP 1 & Pro-Defendant, Dr. M.A. Thiru Narayan, M.D. Micro Biologist, Apollo Children’s Hospital herein OP 2 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner admitted his 11 years old son in Shaktinagar Hospital on 10.08.2012 under Dr. Kumud Ranjan Biswas. As per Dr. Biswas’s advice the blood test of the patient was done from the pathology of OP 1 on 11.08.12. The blood report shows that Antistreptolysin – O was 230.5 lu/ml and Dr. Biswas treated the patient basing on the blood report and from that report only Dr. biswas came to a that decision Sri Dip Bhowmick was a patient of arthritis. The petitioner found that the health of the patient was deteriorating day by day when he was under the treatment Dr. Biswas and so he decided to shift his son to Apollo Children’s Hospital, Chennai for better treatment. In this Hospital the child was treated by Dr. J.N. Daga who also advised for a fresh blood test and this time the ASO (i.e., Antistrepslysin O) was 150 lu/ml. Dr. Daga after seeing the blood test repost was of the opinion that the patient did not have any symptom of arthritis & finally the patient was cured by the treatment of Dr. Daga. So Dr. Biswas could not treat the patient rightly as the blood test report prepared by OP No. 1 was wrong and basing on that report the medicines prescribed by the doctor was also not correct. Due to the application of wrong medicines the health of the child was taking a bad shape. The petitioner sent a letter to C.M.O.H., Nadia on 05.11.12 and also to the District Magistrate, Nadia describing the hazards and tension he had to bear due to the wrong blood test report of OP No 1. C.M.O.H., Nadia did not enquire the matter & just kept silent. Finding no other alternative the petitioner has come before this forum for relief with the following prayer:-
1) Direction upon the OP 1 to pay an amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards compensation for his mental agony and pain.
- Direction upon the OP to pay litigation cost.
The OP 1 contested the case by filing written version & OP No. 2 has not appeared even after getting the notice of the forum and so the case is running ex parte against him as per order No. 9, dtd. 20.02.14. In the written version and also while doing the oral argument OP No. 1denied the fact of wrong blood test report and also denied the fact that Dr. Biswas could not prescribe right medicine to the patient due to the wrong report of blood. OP 1 argued that the blood test which was prepared by Dr. Arup Basak of Central Pathology had a positive and normal report and as per medical books the normal range of antistreptolysin-O in case of and children between 10 hrs to 12 hrs is always below 320 lu/ml. In this case the patients who is 11 years old has got ASO 230 lu/ml as per expert of OP No. 1 dtd. 11.08.12 which is within the normal range. The doctor treated the patient after seeing this report and so the doctor is a necessary party to this case. OP No. 1 also opines that the last report prepared by Chennai on 12.09.12 i.e., 1 month after the preparation of the first report shows a better result which may be after taking medicine prescribed by Dr. Biswas. Moreover, Dr. Daga who treated the patient in the Apollo Hospital never stated in his prescription that the health condition of the patient deteriorated due to wrong treatment of Dr. Biswas on the basis of the wrong blood test report performed by OP. At last OP 1 submits that proper process was adopted to test the blood of the patient and there was no negligence on their part and further states that without Dr. Biswas’s and Dr. Daga’s opinion in this matter the forum cannot come to a conclusive decision and hence, the case suffers from non-joinder of party. Under such circumstances the OP prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost against the petitioner. Both parties filed affidavits-in-chief and they are also challenged by the other side.
From the complaint petition, written version and the documents filed by the parties we frame the following issues for proper adjudication of the case.
1) Whether the petitioner a consumer under the OP?
2) Whether the OP suffers from deficiency in service?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get relief from the OPs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
Point No. 1.
The petitioner is a consumer under OP 1, as he has filed the instant case on behalf of his minor son whose blood test was performed by Dr. Basak in the laboratory of OP 1. The minor son of the petitioner is also a consumer under the OP 2 as he was treated in Apollo Children’s Hospital, Chennai.
Point Nos. 2 & 3
Point Nos. 2 and 3 are taken up together for the sake of convenience & brevity.
Before arriving at a decision whether OP No. 1 is deficient or not we have to study the two blood reports.
Blood Report of Central Pathology (Annexure – 4) i.e., OP 1, shows that the Antistreptolysin – O in case of an Adult ranges < 200 Iu/ml
2 years – 5 years ” < 160 Iu/ml
6 years – 9 years ” < 240 Iu/ml
10 years – 12 years ” < 320 Iu/ml
In this case the patient is a minor of 11 years and hence according to the above statistic the Antistreptolysin – O in the blood of the patient is within the normal range as it is 230 IU/ml. The petitioner did not challenge the normal ranges of ASO at different ages as mentioned in the blood report of OP 1. The petitioner did not give any expert opinion in support of his complaint nor made Dr. K. R. Biswas a party to this case. Dr. Biswas was the right person who could have explained the line of treatment given to the patient having a normal ASO but the forum without any expert opinion cannot arrive at a decision regarding the deficiency in service of OP 1 as the blood report shows that it is correct and the doctors at Apollo Hospital never observed that the previous report of OP 1 was incorrect and as a result the patient had to suffer. So the petitioner’s complaint against the OPs has got no legs to stand upon and hence the petitioner fails to prove his case. OP No 1 is not deficient in their services and is not liable to compensate the petitioner.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/77 be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
