BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 418/2002 Filed on 30..09..2002 Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant:
Vijukumar. V, Viju Vilasom (Rajendra Vilasom), Kamukumchery P.O – 689 696, Piravanthoor (via) Kollam. (B. Reghunadhan Pillai)
Opposite party:
Proprietor, Al-Shafa Diagnostic Centre, Yatheemkhana Shopping Complex, Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Vettoor S. Prakash)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 05..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had approached the opposite party to conduct a whole body medical check up and blood analysis on 06..06..2001 and paid a consideration of Rs.250/- for blood analysis alone. Opposite party is an authorised Institute by the Gulf Co-ordination Council for pre-employment medical check up. Complainant was intended to go to Muscat for job. After analysing the blood samples the opposite party gave a terrifying report that the complainant was an HCV +ve patient, which prevented the complainant from going abroad. As he could not believe in the lab report given by the opposite party, complainant consulted and analysed his blood samples at the reputed Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre on 08..06..2001. After thorough analysis of the blood sample, the said lab found that the complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. On receiving the said report from the Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre the complainant again approached the opposite party's lab on 18..06..2001 for a further analysis of his blood samples. Opposite party's lab had taken and conducted a further blood sample analysis of the complainant and given a very same report as that of their previous report. On getting this report the complainant lost all his hopes of going abroad and thus he lost a much needed job abroad. Complainant finally approached Dr. Meenu Hariharan, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for an authentic consultation on 03..08..2001. The doctor after thorough check up declared that he had not been suffering from any disease. As per the advice of the doctor, the complainant gave his blood samples to Ranbaxy Limited, Mumbai on 03..08..2001 through their authorised Kerala agent “Lab Line Patient Care Centre”, Kumarapuram. After thorough analysis the said lab gave report that complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. In view of the report given by other laboratories the results given by opposite party are absolutely wrong and false due to their negligence and careless analysis. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest to the complainant by way of compensation and cost of the complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party is not aware of the statement that the complainant was intended to go to Muscat for a job. It is true that the complainant's blood analysis and medical check up was conducted by opposite party. Opposite party is an approved member of the Executive Board of the Minister's Council for Gulf Co-ordination Council for conducting the required pre-employment medical check up. Opposite party has qualified laboratory technicians and machinery for the check up. The concerned authorities inspect the institution, the machinery and the facilities provided therein, to ensure the quality of the work done. Though the complainant had approached the opposite party for a re-check up for favourable result which could not be arrived at by the opposite party. It is not possible for the opposite party to recommend that the complainant is fit on the guidelines of medical tests required by man power approved by the Executive Board of Minister's Council for Gulf Co-ordination Council states. Opposite party is not aware of the results given by other labs. Although HCV test is specific, there is chance for HCV to be +ve if the patient is suffering from any other disease. There is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party is not liable to pay compensation. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arises for consideration are: Whether there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Reliefs and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and produced four documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite party did not file any document.
5. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, opposite party's Diagnostic Centre is an authorised Institute by the Gulf Co-ordination Council for pre-employment medical check up and complainant approached opposite party's lab centre to conduct a whole body medical check-up and blood analysis on 06..06..2001. The case of the complainant is that a terrifying report was given by the opposite party that the complainant was an HCV +ve patient which prevented the complainant from going abroad. It has also been the case of the complainant that as he could not believe in the lab report given by the opposite party, complainant consulted and analysed his blood samples at Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre on 08..06..2001 and the said lab test found that complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. It is urged by the complainant that due to the impact of the erroneous and careless report given by the opposite party, complainant has lost a much needed job abroad. Ext.P1 is a photocopy of the bill issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P1, name is Vijukumar Vasudevan, and two dates are written- 06..06..2001 & 18..06..2001. Blood HCV test charge is Rs.250/-. It is mentioned in Ext.P1 that positive 0.548/0.218. Detailed report not stated therein. Ext.P2 is the copy of the cash bill dated 07..06..2001 issued by Sri Chithra Computerised Lab. Test result is not seen mentioned in Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 03..08..2001 issued by speciality Ranbaxy Limited for testing HCV Antibodies. Ext.P4 is the copy of the laboratory report dated 06..08..2001 issued by speciality Ranbaxy Limited. As per Ext.P4, Laboratory report, patient name is Vijukumar and HCV ABS IGG EIA, Hepatitis C, ABS, IGGEIA not affected. Ext.P5 is the copy of advocate notice. It has been rebutted by the opposite party by affidavit that the test was conducted on 06..06..2001 with utmost care and caution, using standard equipment, that the test result was HCV +ve, and that though the complainant approached for a re-check up for a favourable result, the opposite party was unable to give test result which could not be arrived at by them. The same was not denied by the complainant in his affidavit. The case alleged in the complaint is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant was absent for cross examination. Ext. P1 is dichotomized. It is uncertain whether Ext.P1 is the test result or the cash bill. There are two dates in Ext.P1. The initial onus of proving negligence and deficiency rests on the complainant. No expert opinion is seen sought by the complainant to substantiate the allegation in the complaint. The case pleaded is not proved. Complaint is devoid of bonafides. Complainant failed to establish his case against opposite party. In view of the above, we find there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complaint has no merit at all, which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to 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 30th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.418/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of receipt No.5029 dated 18/06/2001 for Rs.250/- P2 : Photocopy of cash bill No.234 dated 07/06/2001 of Sree Chitra Computerised Lab, ECG & X-ray P3 : " receipt/cash memo No.2077 dt. 3/08/2001 P4 : Copy of laboratory report of client code -C000001018 P5 : Copy of advocate notice dated 16/05/2002
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL IV. Opposite party's documents NIL
PRESIDENT ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 418/2002 Filed on 30..09..2002 Dated: 30..01..2009
Complainant:
Vijukumar. V, Viju Vilasom (Rajendra Vilasom), Kamukumchery P.O – 689 696, Piravanthoor (via) Kollam. (B. Reghunadhan Pillai)
Opposite party:
Proprietor, Al-Shafa Diagnostic Centre, Yatheemkhana Shopping Complex, Vallakkadavu, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv. Vettoor S. Prakash)
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 05..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that the complainant had approached the opposite party to conduct a whole body medical check up and blood analysis on 06..06..2001 and paid a consideration of Rs.250/- for blood analysis alone. Opposite party is an authorised Institute by the Gulf Co-ordination Council for pre-employment medical check up. Complainant was intended to go to Muscat for job. After analysing the blood samples the opposite party gave a terrifying report that the complainant was an HCV +ve patient, which prevented the complainant from going abroad. As he could not believe in the lab report given by the opposite party, complainant consulted and analysed his blood samples at the reputed Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre on 08..06..2001. After thorough analysis of the blood sample, the said lab found that the complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. On receiving the said report from the Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre the complainant again approached the opposite party's lab on 18..06..2001 for a further analysis of his blood samples. Opposite party's lab had taken and conducted a further blood sample analysis of the complainant and given a very same report as that of their previous report. On getting this report the complainant lost all his hopes of going abroad and thus he lost a much needed job abroad. Complainant finally approached Dr. Meenu Hariharan, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for an authentic consultation on 03..08..2001. The doctor after thorough check up declared that he had not been suffering from any disease. As per the advice of the doctor, the complainant gave his blood samples to Ranbaxy Limited, Mumbai on 03..08..2001 through their authorised Kerala agent “Lab Line Patient Care Centre”, Kumarapuram. After thorough analysis the said lab gave report that complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. In view of the report given by other laboratories the results given by opposite party are absolutely wrong and false due to their negligence and careless analysis. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest to the complainant by way of compensation and cost of the complaint.
2. Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party is not aware of the statement that the complainant was intended to go to Muscat for a job. It is true that the complainant's blood analysis and medical check up was conducted by opposite party. Opposite party is an approved member of the Executive Board of the Minister's Council for Gulf Co-ordination Council for conducting the required pre-employment medical check up. Opposite party has qualified laboratory technicians and machinery for the check up. The concerned authorities inspect the institution, the machinery and the facilities provided therein, to ensure the quality of the work done. Though the complainant had approached the opposite party for a re-check up for favourable result which could not be arrived at by the opposite party. It is not possible for the opposite party to recommend that the complainant is fit on the guidelines of medical tests required by man power approved by the Executive Board of Minister's Council for Gulf Co-ordination Council states. Opposite party is not aware of the results given by other labs. Although HCV test is specific, there is chance for HCV to be +ve if the patient is suffering from any other disease. There is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence opposite party is not liable to pay compensation. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arises for consideration are: Whether there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Reliefs and cost?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and produced four documents marked as Exts.P1 to P5. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed affidavit. Opposite party did not file any document.
5. Points (i) & (ii) : Admittedly, opposite party's Diagnostic Centre is an authorised Institute by the Gulf Co-ordination Council for pre-employment medical check up and complainant approached opposite party's lab centre to conduct a whole body medical check-up and blood analysis on 06..06..2001. The case of the complainant is that a terrifying report was given by the opposite party that the complainant was an HCV +ve patient which prevented the complainant from going abroad. It has also been the case of the complainant that as he could not believe in the lab report given by the opposite party, complainant consulted and analysed his blood samples at Doctor's Diagnostic & Research Centre on 08..06..2001 and the said lab test found that complainant was not an HCV +ve patient. It is urged by the complainant that due to the impact of the erroneous and careless report given by the opposite party, complainant has lost a much needed job abroad. Ext.P1 is a photocopy of the bill issued by the opposite party. As per Ext.P1, name is Vijukumar Vasudevan, and two dates are written- 06..06..2001 & 18..06..2001. Blood HCV test charge is Rs.250/-. It is mentioned in Ext.P1 that positive 0.548/0.218. Detailed report not stated therein. Ext.P2 is the copy of the cash bill dated 07..06..2001 issued by Sri Chithra Computerised Lab. Test result is not seen mentioned in Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the copy of the receipt dated 03..08..2001 issued by speciality Ranbaxy Limited for testing HCV Antibodies. Ext.P4 is the copy of the laboratory report dated 06..08..2001 issued by speciality Ranbaxy Limited. As per Ext.P4, Laboratory report, patient name is Vijukumar and HCV ABS IGG EIA, Hepatitis C, ABS, IGGEIA not affected. Ext.P5 is the copy of advocate notice. It has been rebutted by the opposite party by affidavit that the test was conducted on 06..06..2001 with utmost care and caution, using standard equipment, that the test result was HCV +ve, and that though the complainant approached for a re-check up for a favourable result, the opposite party was unable to give test result which could not be arrived at by them. The same was not denied by the complainant in his affidavit. The case alleged in the complaint is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant was absent for cross examination. Ext. P1 is dichotomized. It is uncertain whether Ext.P1 is the test result or the cash bill. There are two dates in Ext.P1. The initial onus of proving negligence and deficiency rests on the complainant. No expert opinion is seen sought by the complainant to substantiate the allegation in the complaint. The case pleaded is not proved. Complaint is devoid of bonafides. Complainant failed to establish his case against opposite party. In view of the above, we find there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complaint has no merit at all, which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to 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 30th day of January, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
ad.
O.P.No.418/2002 APPENDIX
Complainant's witness: NIL
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of receipt No.5029 dated 18/06/2001 for Rs.250/- P2 : Photocopy of cash bill No.234 dated 07/06/2001 of Sree Chitra Computerised Lab, ECG & X-ray P3 : " receipt/cash memo No.2077 dt. 3/08/2001 P4 : Copy of laboratory report of client code -C000001018 P5 : Copy of advocate notice dated 16/05/2002
III. Opposite party's witness: NIL IV. Opposite party's documents NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
