Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/18/71

Sukhwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savita Kohli - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Nikhil Bhardwaj

27 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                  Consumer Complaint No. :  71 of 04.09.2018

                                  Date of decision           :     27.11.2018

 

Sukhwinder Kaur, aged about 45 years, wife of Sh. Pardeep Singh, resident of Village Raipur Sahni, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar 

                                                                         ......Complainant

                                             Versus

 Savita Kohli, Prop. of Kohli Laboratory, Lodhipur, Tehsil Sri Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar   

                                                                             ....Opposite Party

                                    Complaint under Section 12 of the                                               Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                         SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                         SH. AMRINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv. counsel for complainant  

OP exparte.  

 

                                             ORDER

 

               SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1. Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and financial loss along with cost towards litigation charges.  
2. Brief facts made out from the complaint are that the O.P. having the laboratory in the name and style of “ Kohli Labortoary” situated at Village Lodhipur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. On 12.6.2018, the complainant has gone Civil Hospital, Anandpur Sahib as she was feeling sick and after examining the complainant by the concerned doctor advise her to tests and as per prescription of the doctor, she has gone to laboratory of OP. The complainant visited to the laboratory of the OP regarding the said tests and concerned samples were taken by the OP and thereafter the OP given the tests reports to the complainant and after receiving the reports the same were shown to the concerned doctor of Civil Hospital, Anandpur Sahib and after seeing the report the concerned doctor referred the complainant to the PGI Chandigarh as the creatinine to 0.5 to 1.4, which was dangerous for health and this range of creatinine is under the range of dialysis. Thereafter, the complainant along with her relative went to the PGI Chandigarh along with concerned reports. Then the doctors of PGI immediately started the treatment and advised for blood tests of the complainant and thereafter blood sample was taken by the laboratory of PGI as prescribed by the concerned doctors and thereafter reports were given by the concerned laboratory of PGI after a week and after obtaining the repots the complainant approached to the concerned doctors and as per the report of laboratory of PGI, the creatinine level was 0.75 MG/DL and after seeing the repots. The concerned doctor asked her that her report is normal and the report of OP was wrong. Due to the blood report of the O.P. laboratory, the complainant faced mental harassment and wastage of time and the family/relatives of the complainant also suffered a huge loss. Hence, this complaint. 

  3.     On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.11.2018.

4.     On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C6 and closed the evidence.   

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

6.     Complainant counsel Sh. Nikhil Bhardwaj, argued that  OP Savita Kohli proprietor of Kohli Laboratory has been running laboratory at Lodhipur, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Rupnagar. Complainant as per the advise of Civil Hospital doctor of Anandpur Sahib went to OP on 12.6.2018 for medical tests in the laboratory. After obtaining the sample, OP given the report Ex.C1, in which creatinine reported 4.96 Mg with specific prescription minimum range is 0.5 to 1.4 Mg. When the said report has come then the complainant and her entire family went in troma and the doctor advised her to get the treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh. The complainant after arranging the necessary expenses went to the PGI Chandigarh and given sample in the PGI Chandigarh laboratory on 18.6.2018, where the report has come qua creatinine 0.75 Mg/Dl, which is complete accurate as required by a healthy person. The learned counsel prayed that evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted and due to the incorrect report of OP, complainant has to bear loss in lacks. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with costs.

7.     It is pertinent to mention that after the admission of this complaint, notice was issued to the OP through registered cover but despite notice OP not appeared and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 6.11.2018. So the evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted.

8.     Complainant got checked up herself from the laboratory of OP by paying necessary charges and then got admission in PGI, Chandigarh then obtained report Ex.C3, which is totally contrary to the OP report. So it is a consumer dispute and complaint is maintainable.

9.     Coming to the controversial point, whether complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP, complainant Sukhwinder Kaur is resident of District Rupnagar and she got tests of her body from the laboratory of OP dated 12.6.2018 and OP give the report qua creatinine 4.96 Mg, whereas, PGI laboratory given the report in normal range i.e. 0.75 Mg/Dl. In both the reports, the normal status of creatinine is in between 0.5 to 1.4 Mg and as per the report of PGI, institute Chandigarh, creatinine of complainant was normal range. Meaning thereby, the complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP. To strengthen the documents, learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, order dated 6.8.2008 in Revision Petition No.2922 of 2008 titled as Manjunatha Pathology Laboratory and Another Vs Meenakshi. In the said authority, the law is laid down that OP gave wrong blood report stating HIV Positive, whereas HIV was negative report of patient, who was pregnant lady, which had caused trauma in her mind i.e. why the order of the Hon’ble State Commission was upheld. Again on the same point, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Commission order dated 16.1.2014 passed in first appeal No.310 of 2010.

10.   After appreciating the law discussed above and the facts, the Forum is of the opinion that deficiency has been established on the part of complainant against the O.P. Complainant also placed on file Ex.C4 & Ex.C5 which proves complainant to be healthy. Now it is to be seen to what extent complainant entitled for compensation.

11.   Though, the complainant got checked up from the laboratory of OP on 12.6.2018 on the advised of Punjab Health System Corporation (Civil Hospital) qua the payment of charges received by the OP from the complainant not placed on file. Similarly, the status of report obtained from the PGI, Chandigarh as no receipt qua the payment of expenses placed on file. So it is a major drawback on the part of the complainant because complainant was duty bound to prove to what extent she bear the loss due to the false report given by the OP. So in the absence of documentary evidence qua the expenses, forum cannot reach at a correct conclusion of expenses. But in the interest of justice, the forum is giving to award compensation in favour of the complainant on the basis of imagine.

12.   Complainant might have paid near about Rs.1000/- to the OP for obtaining the report of creatinine, whereas, Rs.1 to 10 only paid for the prescription in the Civil Hospital. Similarly, she might have spent Rs.5000/6000 to the PGI, Chandigarh, report. In this way, to meet the ends of justice and to give the lession to the O.P. to be careful in future and in the interest of justice Rs.10,000/- is ordered to be paid by the O.P. to the complainant.

13.        The OP is further directed to comply with the said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP paid the said amount along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order.      

13.  The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                      ANNOUNCED                                                  (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                      Dated.27.11.2018                                        PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                            (AMRINDER SINGH)

                                                                                MEMBER