DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.10/22.01.2008 Decided on : 06.08.2008 Ranjit Singh Advocate S/o Sh.Hardev Singh, resident of Village Khudal Kalan, Tehsil Budhlada & District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Ravindra Computerized Clinical Laboratory, Gali No.1, Bahadarpur Road, Bareta, District Mansa through its proprietor Ravinder Goyal. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.R.K.Manchanda, counsel for the complainant. Sh.Deepak Goyal, counsel for the opposite party. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Ranjit Singh (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against the Ravindra Computerized Clinical Laboratory, Bareta (hereinafter called as the opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to disburse him Rs.10,000/- on account of price of medicines, professional loss of Rs.50,000/-, as well as Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. Admitted facts of the case are that, upon feeling uncomfortable, the complainant approached Dr.Ratan Goyal at Bareta on 27.8.2007 for getting his check-up. The doctor advised him for undergoing certain clinical laboratory tests which includes the test of Bilirubin(Total) Contd........2 : 2 : relating to jaundice. On the advise of the doctor, the complainant got conducted the said tests from the OP laboratory by paying the requisite charges, as such the complainant is the consumer of the OP. In the report dated 27.8.2007, the Bilirubin was stated to be 2.35Mgm/DL. On the report of the OP laboratory, the doctor started his treatment. Again the complainant got conducted the said test from the OP laboratory by paying the requisite charges on 6.9.2007 and the Bilirubin was stated to be 1.22 Mgm/DL. Again the complainant got conducted the said test from the OP laboratory on 19.09.2007 and the Bilirubin was stated to be 1.64 Mgm/DL. Again the complainant got conducted the said test from the OP laboratory on 5.10.2007 and the Bilirubin was stated to be 1.39 Mgm/DL. Treatment according to the reports of the OP laboratory was undertaken by the complainant, but no improvement was observed rather his condition started deteriorating. When the complainant did not saw improvement in his health, he got suspicious about the reports of the OP Laboratory. In this respect, the complainant approached the Daatewas Computerized Clinical Laboratory, Budhlada and undertook the Bilirubin test on 5.10.2007 from there. The report of this laboratory revealed that Bilirubin was stated to be .66 Mgm/DL, but the report of OP laboratory revealed to be the 1.39Mgm/DL on the same day i.e. 5.10.2007. For total satisfaction, the complainant even approached another clinical laboratory viz. Jindal Computerized Clinical Laboratory at Budhlada and undertook the Bilirubin test. The report of this laboratory revealed that Bilirubin was stated to be 0.7 Mgm/DL. Both the reports of Budhlada laboratory were tallying and the reports of the OP Laboratory on 5.10.2007 and other dates were stated to be wrong. The test got conducted from Garg Computerized Clinical Laboratory at Budhlada showing Bilirubin as 0.8 Mgm/DL on 24.9.2007 was almost tallying with the reports of Jindal and Daatewas laboratories. The complainant got his jaundice checked from Garg Computerized Laboratory , Bareta on 09.10.2007, vide which the SGOT was 32U/L and Contd........3 : 3 : SGPT was 22U/L, this reveals that the complainant was never having jaundice at any stage. The complainant alleges that the laboratory equipments of the OP were defective and due to the wrong reports given by the OP, the complainant had to consume medicines which were not at all required, as such, the OP is deficient in service towards the complainant. The OP even failed to respond to the legal notice sent by the complainant on 7.1.2008. The complainant thus alleges to have suffered mental, as well as physical harassment. Hence this complaint. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it was admitted that Dr.Ratan Goyal advised the complainant to conduct Bilirubin test and the OP had conducted this test upon one Ranjit Singh. The complainant has failed to attach any report of any Govt. Pathologist to support his claim. The complainant might be allergic to certain medicine. The tests conducted by the complainant from other laboratories were got done on 5.10.2007 after taking medicines for about 1.1/2 months. Thus the complainant cannot say that the medicines had no effect on him. Even the varying test reports could be due to medical conditions of the patient whether he got conducted the tests after taking some medicines and other conditions of the body. Even the test reports from other laboratories carry the note that these are not valid for medico legal purposes. The OP is not binding on the reports of other labs. It was further contended that variations in tests can be due to various physical and medical conditions existing with the patient at a particular time. The symptoms of jaundice are visible from the eyes and face of a patient and a qualified doctor can notice the same by visual examination of the patient. The complainant has not attached any bills or prescriptions of the doctor to show that he purchased medicines. All other allegations were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made. Both the parties have led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and documents. Contd........4 : 4 : We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the entire evidence placed on record by them. From the various test reports exhibits C4 to C12 the doctor referred to by was shown as himself except the one conducted on 27.8.07 in which the patient name is one Paramjeet Singh and referred by doctor is Rattan Goyal. The complainant has failed to produce any prescription slip of any doctor even of Dr.Rattan Goyal from whom the complainant alleges to have undergone his check-up. The complainant has even failed to produce any medical bill vide which it could be ascertained that he might have purchased any medicine on the basis of the test reports of OP laboratory. The variation in the the test reports conducted on 27.8.2007 and 5.10.2007 could be on account of the time gap of about 1.1/2 months between these reports. The complainant has himself admitted that he had taken various medicines and this could be the result of the variations in the reports. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had approached any doctor or the said doctor had prescribed him some tests or medicines. This is clear from all the tests reports placed on record by the complainant himself in which in front of the referred doctor it has been mentioned as patient himself. In the absence of these essential records/evidence, no negligence on the part of the OP laboratory in conducting the various tests on the complainant can be proved. Evidently, the opposite party has placed on record his certificate exhibit OP-2 of one year Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology issued by Para Medical Council of India along with his detailed mark sheet in first division (Exhibit OP3). The complainant has failed to rebutt this document. Apart from the above, in the book titled Gastrointestinal disease pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, it has been stated that jaundice is not evident until serum bilirubin concentration exceeds 3 mg/dl and a bare perusal of reports exhibits C4 C5,C6,C7,C8 and C9 reveals Contd........5 : 5 : that in all the reports, the bilirubin concentration had never exceeded 3 mg/dl. This fact also falsifies the stand of the complainant and the complaint deserves dismissal on this score also. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 06.08.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
