IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2013.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C.No. 158/2012 (Filed on 09.10.2012)
Between:
Beena. B.,
Ayinikkattu Kizhakkethil,
Koodal Muri,
Koodal Village,
Adoor Taluk. … Complainant.
(By Adv. S. Lathika)
And:
1. Director,
DDRC SRL Diagnostic Service,
Near Govt. Hospital,
Pathanamthitta.
2. Ms. Ani Binu,
Technician,
Department of Bio-chemistry,
DDRC Diagnostic Service,
Near Govt. Hospital,
Pathanamthitta.
Addl.3. The Managing Director,
DDRC SRL, Plot No.1,
4th Floor, Prime Square,
Gaiwadi Industrial Estate,
S.V. Road, Gurgaon (W),
Mumbai. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. K. Radhakrishnan)
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that she is a patient of Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph, Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram. On 25.5.2012, the complainant consulted the said doctor who advised her for testing her blood. Accordingly, the said doctor took blood sample of the complainant in the presence of the representative of the opposite parties and the blood sample was given to the said representative after pasting the label on the bottle. The doctor told the complainant that the blood result will be received after 2 days. While so on 27.05.2012 Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph telephoned the complainant and asked her to come to the hospital at the earliest. Immediately, the complainant called a taxi and reached the hospital. At that time the doctor told the complainant that the blood result showed severe kidney problems to the complainant and the only remedy is dialysis and for which she has to go to any other hospital where dialysis facility is available. Immediately she went to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla in a taxi and showed the test result there. After examining the test results they told her to bring her husband at the earliest, who is working at Gulf and they admitted the complainant in the ICU. Thereafter Dr. Reena Thomas and Dr. Subhash Pillai of Nephrology Dept. asked about the symptoms of her ailments and told her to have a further blood test there. Thereafter she was discharged on 30.05.2012 and given bill for Rs.2,430/-. The complainant and her relatives were put to severe mental agony on getting the information of the complainant’s kidney problem from her doctor at Pathanapuram. Such a situation was occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties, which is a clear deficiency in service.
3. In this connection, the complainant was compelled to spend a total amount of Rs. 6,030/- as lab test fees, hospital bills and conveyance expenses etc. Therefore, opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for their deficiency in service. A legal notice was also issued on 22.06.2012 demanding the expenses of the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 75,000/-. The notice was served to the opposite parties but they have not settled the complainant’s demand or even given a reply notice. Hence this complaint for the realization of Rs. 81,030/- in total with 18% interest from 27.05.2012 from the opposite parties.
4. In this case, 1st opposite party is exparte.
5. 2nd and Addl. 3rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed separate version with common contentions. The main contentions in the versions of 2nd opposite party and addl. 3rd opposite party are as follows. They admitted the blood test of the complainant’s blood sample on 25.05.2012 collected by their representative from Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram referred by Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph. According to the opposite parties, the blood was taken by one of the staff nurse of the Thekkedathu Hospital and the same was handed over to the collection representative of the opposite parties for the tests- Urea, Creatinine and Uric Acid. The said sample was processed by the night duty staff of the opposite party at Pathanamthitta and the results obtained were abnormal. Since the results were abnormal, internal quality check (IQC) was performed once again to verify the reagent and the instrument and the QC value were found to be within acceptable range. The sample was rerun again for the above mentioned tests which also yielded the same results. Since the creatinine value was abnormally high, according to laboratory protocol, the sample was stored at 20 degree centigrade (for any cross check if requested). Next day the tests were repeated on the same sample again by the day duty staff which also yielded the same result and the test report was issued to the hospital. The complainant’s doctor correlated the report with clinical conditions and might have referred to further consultation. The left over sample of the serum is still kept in the diagnostic centre at Pathanamthitta in frozen condition and the tests can be repeated at any other laboratory to clear the doubt.
6. While so on 01.06.2012 the brother of the complainant made an oral complaint in this regard. The officials of the opposite parties narrated the general procedure followed in the laboratory before releasing a report and further suggested to repeat the test again on a fresh sample collected at the diagnostic centre at Pathanamthitta. But he told that they have no direct connection with the opposite parties and he would bring the complainant to Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram on 02.06.2012. Accordingly technicians of opposite parties went to hospital on 02.06.2012 and waited for a long time for taking the blood of the complainant. But the complainant did not turned up and her brother told that he did not want to reopen a closed chapter and he did not want a proceed further in this issue. The sample was taken by the nurse of the hospital and the collection representative has only taken the sample from the hospital along with the request form and he did not personally identified the complainant. Since the test performed on the specimens received from outside location, it is to be presumed that the specimen belong to the person named or stated in the test result request form and the verification has been carried out at the point of generation of the said specimen. The allegation that the collection representative of the company was present at the hospital at the time of taking the sample, and the sample was labeled in the presence of the representative of the opposite party is false. Opposite parties never collected any charges directly from the complainant. If the complainant has gone to Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla, the same is as her own volition and such acts are to be attributed to the doctor who advised further investigation upon the complainant and the opposite parties are not liable for the expenses so incurred. Opposite party admitted the receipt of the complainant’s legal notice. A proper reply was sent by the advocate of the 2nd opposite party to the advocate of the complainant and hence the allegation that no reply was sent is false. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint as there is no deficiency in service from their part. With the above contentions, 2nd opposite party and addl. 3rd opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
8. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 and B1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
9. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that her blood was tested at the opposite parties’ laboratory at Pathanamthitta by the second opposite party as per the prescription of Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph of Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram. The test result showed that the complainant is having severe kidney problems and on the basis of the said result, the complainant’s doctor advised her to go for further treatment elsewhere having facilities for kidney treatment. Accordingly, the complainant went to Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla and consulted the doctors and got admitted in the ICU. As per the prescription of the doctors of the Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, the complainants blood was further tested there. The said test result showed no ailments as shown in the test result given by the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the test result of the opposite parties was erroneous which caused financial loss and severe mental agony to the complainant which is a clear deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
10. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of her chief examination along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A8. Ext. A1 is the test result dated 25.05.2012 issued by the second opposite party in respect of the blood test of the complainant. Ext. A2 is the test result-cum-discharge summary dated 31.05.2012 issued from Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla in respect of the blood test and treatments of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the cash bill dated 31.05.2012 for Rs. 2,430/- issued by Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla in respect of the treatment of the complainant. Ext. A4 is the copy of the Advocate Notice dated 22.06.2012 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and Exts. A5 and A6 are the postal receipts and acknowledgment cards of Ext. A4 Advocate Notice. Ext. A7 is the scanning report dated 30.05.2012 of Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla in respect of the scanning conducted to the complainant. Ext. A8 is the trip sheet dated 30.05.2012 and 31.05.2012 in the name of the complainant showing the traveling expense of the complainant in connection with her treatment.
11. The contentions of the opposite parties is that the blood sample taken, sealed and labeled by Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram was collected by the representative of the opposite parties from the said hospital with the prescription of Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph. It was brought to the second opposite party by the representative of opposite parties and the second opposite party had conducted the test on 25.05.2012 night. Along with the blood sample, there is a direction from the prescribed doctor for testing urica, creatinine and uric acid. The test result showed abnormal result. Therefore, an internal quality check-up was also conducted which also showed the similar results which have been received earlier. Since the second test was also confirming the earlier result, a portion of the sample was again tested. In that test also, the result was same. So the sample was kept in 20 Degree Celsius for cross checking. The next day also test was repeated. In that test also the result was same. So the test result was sent to the Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram. While so on 01.06.2012, the complainant’s brother came to the lab and told that his sister had undergone one day’s treatment on 30.05.2012 at Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla as a result of the erroneous test result issued by the opposite parties. The procedures and formalities of the blood test was told to the complainant’s brother and asked him to bring the complainant to opposite parties’ lab for conducting a second lab test. At that time, he told that they have no direct connection with the opposite parties and he is prepared to bring his sister to Thekkedathu Hospital and the opposite parties can take the blood at that hospital. Accordingly, employees of opposite parties went to Thekkedathu Hospital on 02.06.2012 and waited for a long time. But the patient has not came there. After that the patient’s brother met the employees of the opposite parties and told that they are not intending to proceed in this matter. Opposite parties have no direct connection with the complainant. The blood sample received from Thekkedathu Hospital was tested properly and the result was given to the said hospital. Opposite parties did not collected any amount from the complainant and they are not aware that the blood tested by them is the blood of the complainant. Opposite parties received an Advocate Notice from the complainant and a reply was given to the said notice. In the blood test, opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and the blood sample received from the hospital was tested and the test result was given to the hospital. They are also keeping a portion of the sample with them for any cross check if requested. The averment in the complaint is baseless and is not allowable. So they argued for the dismissal of the complaint.
12. In order to prove the case of the opposite parties, the second opposite party filed a proof affidavit along with one document. On the basis of the proof affidavit, second opposite party was examined as DW1 and the document produced is marked as Ext. B1. Ext. B1 is the copy of the reply notice dated 26.09.2012 given by the opposite parties in reply to the complainant’s legal notice.
13. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that the complainant had consulted Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph and as per the prescription of the said doctor, complainant’s blood was taken for test. It is further seen that the blood result received from the opposite parties indicated kidney complaint to the complainant. On the basis of the said result and as per the advice of Dr. Leena Sunny Joseph, the complainant got admitted at Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla where the complainant’s blood was again tested there and the test result of Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital did not indicate any kidney problems to the complainant.
14. According to the complainant, the test result of the opposite parties is an erroneous and the said error is due to the negligence and deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties in the test done at the opposite parties’ lab. The said erroneous test result report put the complainant in a fear of kidney problem though she had no kidney problem. The said circumstances put the complainant to severe mental agony and financial loss.
15. But according to the opposite parties, they received a blood sample from Thekkedathu Hospital labelled in the name of one Beena. B. which was properly tested at their lab and the result received in the test was properly given to the hospital from where the sample was received. They have no doubt in the result as the said result was received in the test of the blood sample received from the hospital.
16. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the questions to be considered is whether the blood sample given from Thekkedathu Hospital is taken from the complainant and whether the result given by the opposite parties is the result of that particular blood sample received by them from the Thekkedathu Hospital.
17. The complainant’s case as per the complaint is that her blood was taken and labelled by the doctor in the presence of the DDRC representative and it was given to the said representative in the presence of the complainant. At the same time, as per Ext. A4 legal notice, the complainant’s case is that her blood was taken and labelled by a nurse in the presence of the DDRC representative and it was given to him in the presence of the complainant. But the deposition of the complainant in her cross examination is different. As per her deposition, the information that her blood was tested at DDRC is received from her doctor. The relevant portion of the deposition is as follows: “tUmIvSÀ ]d-ª-X-\p-k-cn-¨mWv Fsâ blood DDRC bnemWv Test sNbvX-sX¶v a\-Ên-em-¡n-bXv”. The above said three statements of the complainant is contradictory. The said contradictory statements of the complainant clearly shows that she had no knowledge about the labeling and the remaining part of the said transaction. At the same time, the strong contention raised by the opposite parties is that the blood result given by them is the result of the blood sample received by them from the hospital. So the question whether the blood sample sent from the hospital is taken from the complainant is unanswered. Here, the relevant document of Thekkedathu Hospital in connection with the complainant’s blood test and the oral evidence of the doctor and other staff of Thekkedathu Hospital, Pathanapuram is very much relevant for finding out the truth. But unfortunately such evidence is not brought by the complainant. What prevented the complainant to bring those evidence before this Forum? Further, the complainant did not made any effort for bringing in evidence, the remaining blood sample in the labelled bottle with the complainant’s blood which is kept in the custody of the opposite parties in spite of the offer of the opposite parties for their willingness for a re-test. Further, she also failed to give her blood to the opposite parties for further tests in spite of the willingness of the opposite parties for the same. All these facts and circumstances leads us to a conclusion that the complainant miserably failed to adduce strong evidence to substantiate her case that the blood sample taken from the complainant itself is the sample received by the opposite parties. Since the first aspect is found against the complainant, the second aspect does not require further consideration. Therefore, we find no merits in this case and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
18. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2013.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Beena. B.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Test result dated 25.05.2012 issued by the second
opposite party in respect of the blood test of the
complainant.
A2 : Test result-cum-discharge summary dated 31.05.2012
issued from Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvalla.
A3 : Cash bill dated 31.05.2012 for Rs. 2,430/- issued by
Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla.
A4 : Copy of the Advocate Notice dated 22.06.2012 sent by
the complainant to the opposite parties.
A5 & A6 : Postal receipts and acknowledgment cards of Ext. A4
Advocate Notice.
A7 : USG Abdomen report dated 30.05.2012 of Pushpagiri
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvalla in respect of the
scanning conducted to the complainant.
A8 : Trip sheet dated 30.05.2012 and 31.05.2012 showing the
travelling expense of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:
DW1 : Annie Binu.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:
B1 : Copy of the reply notice dated 26.09.2012 given by the
opposite parties in reply to the complainant’s legal notice.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent
Copy to:- (1) Beena. B., Ayinikkattu Kizhakkethil, Koodal Muri,
Koodal Village, Adoor Taluk. (2) Director, DDRC SRL Diagnostic Service,
Near Govt. Hospital, Pathanamthitta.
(3) Ms. Ani Binu, Technician,Department of Bio-chemistry,
DDRC Diagnostic Service, Near Govt. Hospital,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Managing Director, DDRC SRL, Plot No.1,
4th Floor, Prime Square, Gaiwadi Industrial Estate,
S.V. Road, Gurgaon (W), Mumbai.
(5) The Stock File.
