BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 164 of 2016.
Date of Institution : 13.07.2016
Date of Decision : 24.05.2017.
Mohit Soni, aged 18 years, son of Shri Lalit Soni, resident of House No.224, Friends Colony, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sri Balajee Laboratory, Sri Balajee Market, Near Hanuman Mandir, Khairpur, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Ganga Clinical Laboratory, Ganga Hospital Campus, Under Railway Over Bridge, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Incharge.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………………PRESIDING MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ………MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Vinod Kamboj, Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Prink Monga, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties with the averments that on 26.4.2016, complainant developed fever and he visited Dr. Majok, Friends Colony, Sirsa for check up. The doctor after examining him advised for Malaria test and platelet count test. The complainant as per advise of the doctor visited the opposite party and asked for above two tests whereupon op no.1 took blood samples of the complainant and charged a sum of Rs.230/- for above two tests. The op no.1 stated that report of Malaria test will be available in the evening of 26.4.2016 whereas the report of platelet count will be given on next day. On 26.4.2016, the op no.1 gave the report of malaria test to the complainant which was reported to be negative and on 27.4.2016 when the complainant visited the op no.1 and asked for the platelet count report, the op no.1 stated that he has got conducted this test from op no.2 and supplied the report dated 27.4.2016 given by op no.2 wherein the platelet count was shown 59 X 10^9/1 against normal range of 150-450. It is further averred that on receipt of the above report, the complainant alongwith his father consulted the doctor Dr. Majok and showed him the report of platelet count whereupon Dr. Majok advised for specialized treatment from a specialist. Then on 27.4.2016, the father of the complainant took him to Dr. G.K. Aggarwal of Raj Maternity and GK Nursing Home, Sirsa and Dr. G.K. Aggarwal on examining the complainant and perusing the above two reports advised for getting the above tests again. On 27.4.2016, the complainant visited Garg Diagnostic Lab., Sirsa and got conducted the above two tests i.e. Malaria test and platelet count test. On 27.4.2016 itself, Garg Diagnostic Lab. gave its report wherein malaria was reported to be negative and platelet count was reported as 2,14,000 per cmm i.e. within normal range. The complainant and his father were highly surprised and shocked to go through the said report because both the above reports of platelet counts were of date 27.4.2016 but there was lot of difference in both the reports. In this manner, the ops have conducted the platelet count test of the blood sample of complainant in a very casual and ordinary manner and thereby gave a totally false and incorrect report as a result of which the complainant and his family members underwent acute mental stress and disappointment. The ops have tried to play with the life of the complainant by giving a false and incorrect test report. As such, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.two lacs and also litigation expenses from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action and suppression of material facts etc. It has been submitted that the complaint is without any valid and legal cause of action because the complainant did not mention about the deficiency in service on the part of replying op while conducting the test of the Malaria parasite (M.P) because the report of the test by the replying op as well as the report regarding malaria test conducted by the Garg Diagnostic Centre is equal reported as Negative and the fact remains that the op no.1 has no role or the participation in the testing and sampling of platelets. The complainant just in order to implead the replying op has concocted the story of sampling for platelets by the replying op. It has been further submitted that the complainant when approached the replying op for getting the testing of malaria test, he stated the name of doctor as Narender Sharma, as such the same has been duly mentioned as referred in the report slip issued to the complainant regarding which no dispute has been raised by the complainant in the complaint, hence the statement of the complainant that he undergone the treatment from Dr. Majok for the first time and that he has referred the testing of malaria is absolutely denied being incorrect. The complainant has only got conducted the test of Malaria Parasite from the replying op. It has been further submitted that the complainant has also stated about charging of the fee of Rs.230/- including the charging of test of platelets but failed to produce on file any receipt in this regard. The replying op has charged only Rs.30/- for the Malaria test of the complainant. Moreover, without admitting any kind of role of the replying op in the testing of platelets, it is submitted that the complainant has failed to explain any kind of deficiencies in a technical/ medical way for testing of the platelets because the platelets can be ‘up and down’ within an hour. The complainant has also failed to explain with any medicated/ scientific way that this is the adverse outcome of the said report of the platelets. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 filed its reply taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; suppression of material facts and that complainant does not fall under the category of consumer because he never contacted the answering op directly nor he got conducted any test from the answering op and as such he has got no legal right to file the present complaint against the answering op and that there is no evidence regarding the authenticity of both the reports whether the same are as per the actual health condition of the patient or not. On merits, it has been submitted that on 26.4.2016, the op no.1 supplied the blood samples to the answering op for conducting platelet count test and to issue report thereof. The answering op conducted the platelet count test with due care and caution with cell counter machine (single chamber) and issued report thereof to the op no.1. Neither the complainant himself met the answering op directly for getting conducted the aforesaid test nor the report has been issued to him directly. At the time of tests, the complainant was already under treatment and was taking medicines. The difference in the platelets of a patient can easily be seen even after an hour and it changes with a hour to hour gap, thus it is not surprising that there was difference between the report conducted by the answering op and the report allegedly got conducted by the complainant from Garg Diagnostic Lab. It has been further submitted that it cannot be ruled out that the condition of the patient was kept on improving and only account of his improvement, there was difference between the reports. The bare perusal of the complaint itself shows that the complainant has got conducted his second test by giving fresh blood sample to the Garg Laboratory after passing of several hours of the first blood sample test and the reports from the two samples taken at different times cannot be compared and if such samples are tested and compared, there shall be definitely differences between both the reports. The report of Garg Lab itself highlights that the different samples can give variation on the result. It has been further submitted that the present complaint is nothing but same has been filed by the complainant only with an ulterior motive to harass, humiliate and to grab huge amount from the answering op. The report issued by the answering op was as per the condition of the patient. Moreover, from the perusal of the complaint, it is not clear that as to why and with what purpose the answering op has issued such alleged false and incorrect report. There was no benefit to the answering op in issuing any such report. The answering op is indulged in this business for the last several years and has been providing his services to the people without adopting any unfair trade practice and negligence. The answering op has never been prosecuted for any such illegal act in the past. This act on the part of the complainant is adversely affecting the image of the answering op. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. In evidence, the complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of report of Shri Bala Ji Laboratory dated 26.4.2016 Ex.C2, copy of report of Ganga Clinical Laboratory dated 27.4.2016 Ex.C3, copy of prescription slip dated 27.4.2016 Ex.C4 and copy of report of Garg Diagnostic Lab. Ex.C5. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A and report dated 26.4.2016 Ex.R1. OP no.2 produced affidavit Ex.RW2/B and affidavit of Dr. Bharat Bhushan as Ex.RW2/C.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The laboratory test report of the complainant conducted by opposite party no.1 on 26.4.2016 (Ex.C2) regarding Malaria Parasite shows the same as ‘Negative’. In the laboratory test report (Ex.C3) of the complainant dated 27.4.2016 conducted by the opposite party no.2 through op no.1 as is admitted by op no.2 himself and it is on the report itself that sample was taken from outside, the platelet count has been shown as 59 X 10^9/L against normal range of 150-450. From the copy of prescription slip dated 27.4.2016 of Raj Maternity & G.K. Nursing Home, it is evident that the doctor advised Malaria Parasite (Antigen) test and platelet test again as the complainant complained about pain and three days headache, vomiting and diarrhea. In the laboratory test report of the complainant dated 27.4.2016 conducted by Garg Diagnostic Lab. (Ex.C5), the M.P. Antigen Card has been shown as ‘Negative’ and total platelet count has been shown as 2,14,000 per cmm i.e. normal in range because the normal value has been shown as 1.5-4.0 lakhs per cmm. and accordingly the doctor prescribed medicines to the complainant in view of the report Ex.C5. So, it is proved on record that that there is a lot of difference in between the reports conducted by opposite party no.2 and Garg Diagnostic Lab. regarding platelet counts of the complainant and the doctor of Raj Maternity & G.K. Nursing Home doubted the report of the opposite party no.2 and again advised the above said tests to the complainant. Therefore, it is also proved on record that report given by the opposite party no.2 is not correct because it showed very less platelet count whereas the report given by the Garg Diagnostic Lab. on the advise of the doctor and conducted on the same day i.e. on 27.4.2016 showed normal range of platelets. The op no.2 has not produced any medical literature regarding platelet counts in support of his averments. The complainant would have been certainly in worry and felt unhappy for a short period by seeing such report of less platelet count but there is nothing on record to prove that complainant suffered such huge financial loss on his treatment due to incorrect report given by op no.2 and also harassment due to such report because the report of Garg Diagnostic Centre was obtained on the same day i.e. on 27.4.2016 on the asking of the doctor when the report of op no.2 was given. The complainant has also failed to make out a case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 because the op no.1 had only given the report of Malaria test as Negative which was also found Negative by Garg Diagnostic Lab. on 27.4.2016.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 and direct the op no.2 to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for some extent of harassment including litigation expenses. However, the complaint qua opposite party no.1 is hereby dismissed. The op no.2 is directed to make the payment of above said amount within a period of one month to the complainant from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount from the date of order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. Presiding Member,
Dated: 24.05.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
