DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 88 of 2018

 

Shri Dipankar Acharjee,

S/O- Shri Dhirendra Acharjee,

Resident of Uttar Madhyapara,

P.O. & P.S.-Amtali,

Dist.-West Tripura, .…..….................................Complainant.

 

                  VERSUS

 

1). Vinayaka Health Care and Diagnostic Centre,

Office Lane, Near SDM Office,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Tripura,

Pin-799001.

Represented by its Owner/proprietor. 

 

2). Shri Narayan Saha,

Owner / Proprietor: 

Vinayaka Health Care and Diagnostic Centre,

Office Lane, Near SDM Office,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Tripura, 

Pin-799001 …............................................Opposite parties. 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Raju Datta,

  Advocate. 

For the O.Ps. : Sri Bhaskar Deb,

  Smt. Sujata Deb(Gupta),

  Sri Saikat Rahaman,

  Sri Bikram Paul,

   Advocates.       

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 30 /05/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Shri Dipankar Acharjee, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant being a patient suffering from Ulcerative growth and having had under gone Colonoscopy by Dr. Amitava Roy of ILS Hospitals, Agartala has been advised by Dr. Roy for Biopsy test for the purpose of Histopathology. As per advise of Dr. Amitava Roy, the complainant on 03/08/2018 went to the Vinayaka Health Care and Diagnostic Centre, Agartala, the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.2 Sri Narayan Saha, the Owner/Proprietor of the Vinayaka Health Care and Diagnostic Centre, Agartala. On the same day he deposited the sample of Biopsy and made full amount of Rs.1,000/- in the billing section of the O.P. Health Care and Diagnostic Centre vide bill No.8061 dated 03/08/2018 being the charges for conducting the test and report. The complainant was contemplating to get the report of Biopsy test  early but inspite of making inquiries several times about the test result from 05/08/2018 to 28/08/2018 he did not receive any fruitful response from the O.Ps. On 29/08/2018 the complainant along with his two friends namely Shri Raju Karmakar(PW-2) & Shri Prasanta Sen Chowdhury(PW-3) went to the Vinayaka Health Care and Diagnostic Centre to enquire about the Biopsy test report and that at that time the O.P. No.2 appraised him that the Biopsy sample was missing from the Diagnostic Centre. On the same day the O.P. No.2 gave a written report to the Complainant admitting that Biopsy sample of the complainant which was received on 03/08/2018 at the Diagnostic Centre(O.P. No.2) is found missing from the vial which might have occurred during transit. The Complainant has stated in his complaint that after hearing of it his health condition deteriorated  and that due to the negligent act of the O.Ps. the Complainant was deprived of proper treatment. 

The Complainant on 05/08/2018 through his lawyer Sri Raju Datta issued a demand notice to the O.Ps. asking for payment of Rs.3,50,000/- to him on account of negligent act committed by both the O.Ps. According to the Complainant the demand notice was duly served upon the O.Ps. But inspite of it the O.Ps. remained silent in respect of his demand.

The complainant ultimately has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps. praying for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for suffering loss and mental agony and Rs.1,00,000/- due to the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. 

Hence this case. 

Both the O.Ps. have contested the case by filing written objection denying the assertions of the Complainant. The O.Ps. have however admitted deposit of sample of Biopsy by the Complainant at their Health Care and Diagnostic Centre and missing of the same. The O.Ps. have denied any negligence or any act of omission on their part in dealing with the biopsy sample of the complainant. According to the O.Ps. missing of the sample of Biopsy is purely an accidental matter which was not intentional.  The O.Ps. have denied deterioration of health condition of the complainant on account of the losing of Biopsy sample as the Complainant has not produced any clinical report, prescription or documents about his health condition post missing of the sample justifying his claim. The O.Ps. also denied service of legal notice upon them as claimed by the complainant. The O.Ps. further asserted in their W.O. that it takes about 20/25 days for obtaining Biopsy test's result because the sample is usually sent to  Diagno Lab, Kolkata for conducting test and that when the Complainant came to the Diagnostic Centre on 03/08/2018 he has been duly informed about it. But in spite of it the complainant after 20/25 days of depositing the sample came to the Diagnostic Centre to enquire about the report and misbehaved with the staff of the Diagnostic Centre. The O.Ps. further stated in the W.O. That they offered to the complainant for arrangement of his Biopsy test second time free of cost but the offer was not accepted by the Complainant. According to the O.Ps., there was no deficiency of service on their part towards the Complainant and as such the complaint filed by the complainant deserves dismissal.

  The O.Ps. have thus prayed for rejecting the complaint. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 05 documents namely Original Bill vide No.8061 dated 03/08/2018 issued by the O.P. No.2 showing deposit of Rs.1,000/- being the charge of Biopsy test, Original report dated 29/08/2018 issued by the O.P. No.2 admitting the missing of Biopsy sample of the Complainant, Copy of demand notice issued by the Complainant to the O.P. No.2 along with postal receipt, Original Biopsy Form dated 03/08/2018 issued by the ILS Hospitals, Agartala in the name of the Complainant & the Original Colonoscopy report of the complainant issued by Dr. Amitava Roy, Gastroentrologist & Endoscopist, ILS Hospitals, Agartala.  The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. The complainant also adduced evidence of two witnesses  namely Shri Raju Karmakar(PW-2) & Shri Prasanta Sen Chowdhury(PW-3) in support of his case. 

On behalf of the O.Ps. one witness namely Ajitesh Debnath, one of the partners of Vinayaka Health care & Diagnostic Centre, Agartala(O.P. No.1) has been examined.  The said witness did not adduce any documentary evidence. 

 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  there was  any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments from both sides. 

  It is evident from the case record that there is no denial by the O.Ps. about deposit of sample of Biopsy of the Complainant on 03/08/2018 by the Complainant at the Vinayaka Health Care & Diagnostic Centre, Agartala(O.P. No.1) and payment of Rs.1,000/- being the Biopsy test charges by the Complainant. The O.Ps. have also admitted missing of the Biopsy sample from their Diagnostic Centre. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties as well as Examinations-in-chief of the Complainant, his witnesses and that of the witness for the O.Ps. We have also glance through the documentary evidence produced by the Complainant. Though the Complainant and his witnesses were cross examined but nothing material came out to disbelieve the case of the Complainant. The O.Ps'. plea that the missing of Biopsy sample was not intentional rather it was an accidental one does not appear to us convincing. From the written report dated 29/08/2018 submitted by the O.P. No.2(Exhibit-I series), we find that the O.P. No.2 while admitting missing of the sample stated that the sample might have got lost from the vial during transportation. From the report it is not clear to us that where was the sample being sent by the O.Ps. Moreover, the witness for the O.Ps. at para-4 in his Examination-in-chief by way of Affidavit has stated that for Biopsy report  the O.Ps. usually send all the samples to Diagno Lab, Kolkata for obtaining better report and that after query from the Diago Lab the staff of the O.Ps. came to learn  that the sample of the Complainant some how had been misplaced. Thus we have noticed that the O.Ps. have taken contradictory approach while clarifying the reasons for missing of the sample. From  the evidence on record adduced by the Complainant side we are convinced and satisfied that the O.Ps. are guilty of committing deficiency of service towards the Complainant.  It is a matter of great concern to us that the Complainant who is a patient suffering from Ulcerative growth and having had under gone Colonoscopy by Dr. Amitava Roy of ILS Hospitals, Agartala has not got due service from the O.P. Diagnostic Centre even after payment of the due charges for getting his Biopsy test report so as to enable him to get further medical treatment from Dr. Amitava Roy, Gastroentrologist & Endoscopist, ILS Hospitals, Agartala though he had deposited the Biopsy sample with the O.P. Diagnostic Centre in time after having had under gone a painful procedure at the ILS, Hospitals, Agartala. The O.Ps. have taken the plea that they had offered arrangement of free of charge second time Biopsy sample for the Complainant but we find that the O.Ps. have not adduced documentary evidence supporting the plea. Even the written report dated 29/08/2018 submitted by the O.P. No.2(Exhibit-I series) does not indicate that such an offer having been extended to the complainant. 

   

    In view of the discussion made above, we find and hold that the complainant has succeeded in a establishing his case U/S  12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

      We accordingly find the O.P. guilty of committing deficiency of service  towards the complainant. 

  Consequently, it is directed that the O.P. will pay Rs.35,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and cost of Colonoscopy together with Rs.4,000/- being the cost of litigation. The O.Ps. are further directed to refund Rs.1,000/- being the charges levied by the O.Ps. for Biopsy test. Thus the O.Ps. are to pay Rs.40,000/-(Rs.35,000/- + Rs.4,000/- + Rs.1,000/-) to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA