Sukhwinder Kaur filed a consumer case on 27 Nov 2018 against Savita Kohli in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/71 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Nov 2018.
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
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
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.