BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 245/2015 Filed on 05.06.2015
ORDER DATED: 16.11.2015
Complainant:
Nazarudeen, S/o Abdul Jabbar, Thumbattuthodiyil, New Nagar-14, Vadakkevila P.O, Kollam.
(By adv. S. Sujan)
Opposite party:
Proprietor, Health Care Diagnostic Centre, T.C. No. 26/875, Panavila Junction, Opp: Mary Bown, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
This C.C having been heard on 15.10.2015, the Forum on 16.11.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER
The complainant is a driver by profession. He received a job visa for driver vacancy in Saudi Arabia. As a part of the visa clearance a medical check-up is highly necessary. Hence the GAMCA has directed the complainant to take medical test from the opposite party’s firm Health Care Diagnostic Centre. On 05.12.2014 the complainant appeared before the opposite party’s firm and undergone medical test. On the same day itself the opposite party informed the complainant about the test report and informed him about his illness on the basis of the test report. The opposite party has given a detailed medical test report to the complainant pointing out that, the complainant is unfit as per the guidelines of GCC due to TPHA (Positive) Elesa Method. After receiving this information the complainant was mentally shocked. So for a second opinion, he approached another laboratory Dianova Laboratories, Manorama Junction, Kottayam and taken the test and in this laboratory they stated that TPHA is non-reactive and complainant is medically fit for going to Saudi Arabia. For a third clarification and final opinion the complainant approached the Govt. Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram on 13.01.2015 and repeated the test. The government laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram has given a report stating that TPHA is negative and they also stated it is non-reactive. From this report also it is evident that the complainant is totally medical fit to go to GCC country for job. The complainant had lost his opportunity to go to Saudi Arabia and lost his driver job with an earning of Rs. 50,000/- per month due to the negligent act of the opposite party’s firm. The act of the opposite party is a clear case of deficiency in service and the opposite party carelessly prepared the test report of the complainant for which the complainant is to be compensated adequately.
Notice was sent to the opposite party, but they never appeared or contested the matter. So they were set exparte.
Issues:
- Whether the allegation against the opposite party is proved?
- Reliefs and costs if any?
Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with 10 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P10. Ext. P1 is the visa copy issued from Al-Nashar Recruitment Office. Ext. P2 is the photo affixed card issued from the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the token issued from the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the report dated 13.01.2015 issued from the opposite party. Ext. P5 is the lab report issued from Dianova Laboratories dated 30.12.2014. Ext. P6 is the Serology Report issued from the State Public Health and Clinical Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.01.2015. Ext. P7 is the Serology Report issued from the General Hospital Development Committee, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.01.2015. Ext. P8 is the legal notice dated 04.03.2015. Ext. P9 is the postal receipt and Ext. P10 is the acknowledgement card.
Perused the documents and heard the complainant. Nothing is brought in contradictory to the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party. So we have no other way rather than to allow the complaint. Here, the complainant is claiming Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation. He claims that he had lost a job in Gulf Country with Rs. 50,000/- Indian Rupee as salary. But no evidence is there to prove this statement. Moreover there is no proof before us to conclude that the complainant lost this job merely because of this medical report. Not even the salary offering of abroad is proved before us. So we are not in a position to allow that amount. Only thing to decide is that whether there is any deficiency from the side of the opposite party. It is crystal clear that the report varied from lab to lab and we can conclude that the opposite party issued a wrong report to the complainant, that too a report stating that he is infected with a disease, which common people fear to disclose. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are allowing a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) as compensation within a month of receipt of this order, failing which this amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% till the date of realization. No order on costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of November 2015.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 245/2015
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of visa issued by Al-Nashar Recruitment Office.
P2 - Photo affixed card issued by opposite party
P3 - Token issued by opposite party
P4 - Report dated 13.01.2015 issued by opposite party
P5 - Lab report issued from Dianova Laboratories dated 30.12.2014.
P6 - Serology Report issued from the State Public Health and Clinical
Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.01.2015
P7 - Serology Report issued from the General Hospital Development
Committee, Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.01.2015
P8 - Legal notice dated 04.03.2015
P9 - Postal receipt
P10 - Acknowledgement card
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
