By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case is that on 4.8.05 the complainant gone to conduct Random Glucose test in Urine and Blood at respondent Lab. As per the report the blood sugar was 148 mg./dl and also found in urine. He approached the doctor and as per the advice of doctor repeated those tests at Poly Clinic on 11.8.05. In that report the blood sugar was 91 mg/100 on fasting. On 24.8.05 again test was conducted and found that 81 mg/100 ml. Subsequently the same tests were conducted at Jeeva Speciality Laboratory. All the results shown the blood sugar was normal. The test conducted at respondent lab is not in proper way. The test at respondent lab was conducted after two weeks of the marriage of the complainant. The result was known by his wife and it caused mental difficulties to both. The act of respondent is unfair and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is admitted that the blood test was conducted at respondent lab. The blood result was correct and the other averments are denied by respondent. The respondent lab is functioning very well. The rate of blood sugar and urine sugar is depending upon the food and medicines taken by the person and also depends upon some other factors like anxiety, depression mind, changes in hormone etc. The tests were done at different dates and it is true that different results will be there. The complaint is experimental. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1, PW2, RW1 and RW2, Exts. P1 series to P8 and Exts. R1 to R3.
5. Points: The complaint is filed to get compensation from the respondent alleging wrong blood result. It is the case that on 4.8.05 the respondent lab conducted random glucose test in blood and urine of complainant. Ext. P1 series are test results from respondent lab. Ext. P1(b) would show the random glucose value as 148 mg/dl and the random urine sugar as green (0.5%). It is the case of complainant that this report is incorrect and this caused difficulties in his life and respondent is liable for compensation.
6. The respondent filed their version by denying the claim of complainant by stating that the glucose level in blood will vary according to the food and medicines taken by the person and also on account of depression and anxiety etc. The complainant is examined as PW2 and he deposed in tune with his case. According to him he had conducted the same tests in various laboratories and the results would show that the glucose level in blood and urine was normal. Exts. P2, P3, P4 and P5 are the lab reports from different laboratories and which would show the result that the sugar level in blood is normal. At the same time all these would show the urine, sugar as ‘nil’. So it can be considered that Ext. P1(b) report is wrong. The complainant has produced Ext. P8 a certificate issued by PW1. It shows that the complainant was not a diabetic according to blood and urine report. The doctor who has issued Ext. P8 is examined as PW1 and she has deposed that the complainant was not a diabetic patient at the time of examination by her and Ext. P8 certificate was issued as per the blood test conducted. During cross examination she has admitted that there will occur variations in sugar level on account of anxiety, depression, change in hormone etc. She also deposed that after conducting repeated tests Ext. P8 was issued. So the version of PW1 with regard to the diabetic condition of PW2 is in favour of PW2and he was not a diabetic patient at that time.
7. Exts. R1 to R3 were marked on the part of respondents and RW1 and RW2 were examined also. RW1 is the licensee of respondent laboratory and it is his version that the sugar condition will change according to the food taken by the persons. But he has deposed that in order to confirm a person diabetic one test is not sufficient. It is true that in this case after the test conducted at respondent laboratory the complainant has undergone the same test at various laboratories. All the reports would show the sugar level as normal. So it can be considered that the test conducted at respondent laboratory was not correct.
8. RW2 is Dr. V.P. Gopinathan and it is version that the sugar level in each person will be different on different dates. It will be also in different types also. The reasons for varying are also deposed by him. According to him the colours of green and yellow would show the urine sugar. Except Ext. P1(b) all other results would show the urine sugar as nil. So this also would lead to the conclusion that the report at respondent laboratory was incorrect. He has explained that the green colour showing at the stage of random is not sufficient to say that a person is sugar patient. But he also stated that it can be said that sugar level is high to that person. RW2 also deposed the quality of chemicals using at the laboratories for conducting the test. According to him if low quality chemicals are used there will be variations in the reading. It is true that there is no evidence to show that the respondent laboratory used low quality chemicals. But the entire evidence would lead to the conclusion that the test conducted at respondent laboratory was incorrect when compared with the tests conducted at other laboratories. So the complainant is entitled to get compensation. The complainant has a case that there was quarrel with his wife and his family and his life became worse. But there is no evidence to that.
9. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of November 2012.
