KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.50/2013

JUDGMENT DATED:06.07.2013

(Against the order in CC.122/05 by the CDRF, Idukki dt:08.11.2012)

  PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI              :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                               : MEMBER

Rachana Laboratory,

Mannuthy, R/by

Proprietor-                                                                            : APPELLANT

Stanely Benjamin.

(By Adv: Sri.Sunny P Chummar)

            Vs.

Sathishkumar,

S/o Kankissery Veettil Parameswaran,                        : RESPONDENT

Vellanikkara, Thrissur.

(By Adv: Sri.T.Geenakumari)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.1229/05 of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated November 08, 2012 directing the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs.3000/- and  a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant for giving an incorrect blood sugar test.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW2 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this.  On August 04,  2005 he has gone to the laboratory of the appellant/opposite party for a random glucose test in urine and blood.  Ext.P1 series is the said report which shows that his blood sugar was 148mg/100ml.  It is also found in urine on the advice of his doctor he repeatedly tested his blood sugar in Poly Clinic on August 11, 2005 and also in Jeeva  Specialty Laboratory.   Therein the blood sugar was found to be 91mg/100ml respectively.  Thus his blood sugar was normal.  The test was conducted after 2 weeks of his marriage which caused mental agony to himself and wife.  Therefore he filed a complaint claiming compensation.

3.      The appellant/opposite party is Rachana Laboratory, Mannuthy represented by its Proprietor RW1.  In his version and also as RW1, the appellant contended thus before the Forum:  It is admitted that complainant conducted blood test in the laboratory of the appellant.  Result was correct. The rate of blood sugar and urine sugar will depend upon the food and medicine taken by him as well as other factors like anxiety, depression, changes in hormone etc.  Therefore complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the appellant.

4.      PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked on the side of the complainant before the Forum.  The appellant/opposite party examined RW1 and RW2 and produced Exts.R1 to R3.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the appellant gave a wrong report regarding blood glucose level of complainant in the report Ext.P1 series and awarded a compensation of Rs.3000/-.  The opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1.   Whether Ext.P1 series the lab report issued from the laboratory of the appellant is wrong?

2.   Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

6.      The counsel for the appellant argued that the blood sugar and the level of urine sugar stated in Ext.P1 series is 148mg/100ml is correct and that the blood sugar of a person will depend upon the food and medicine taken by him.  There is no substance in the above contention.  The lab report from different laboratories Ext.P3, P4 and P5 shows that blood sugar level of complainant is normal.  Complainant has also examined PW1 the doctor who issued a certificate Ext.P8 which shows that he is not a diabetic patient.  All these facts clearly shows that the blood sugar and urine sugar level shown in Ext.P1 series is wrong.

7.      RW1 is the licensee of the appellant/laboratory.  He examined RW2 the doctor who would say that sugar contents change according to the food taken by the persons.  But his evidence does not in any way help the appellant to prove his case.  Cross-examined he has admitted that if low quality chemicals are used there will be variations in the reading.  In these circumstances we are of the view that the Forum is perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the blood sugar level and urine sugar level shown in Ext.P1 series is not correct.  That being so claimant is entitled to compensation from the appellant.

8.      The Forum has ordered a compensation of Rs.3000/- and a cost of Rs.500/- which appears reasonable.

In the result we find no merit and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.500/-.

JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.