Date of Filing      : 03.11.2022
                                                                                                                  Date of Disposal: 13.07.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                   .…. PRESIDENT
                 THIUR.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                        ......MEMBER-I
                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.182/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2023

Mrs.Raja Rajeswari,
W/o.Karthik @ Kishore,
No.8/3, Dhanalakshmi Street,
West Banu Nagar, Pudur,
Ambattur, Chennai 53.                                                                        ……Complainant.
                                                                               //Vs//
The  Managing Director/Proprietor,
St.Lords Diagnostic Center,
No.236, CTH Road,
Pattabiram, Chennai 600 072.                                                      .......Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                         :   M/s.M.Staleen, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party                                     :   M/s.Majestic Law Firm.
                        
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 03.07.2023 in the presence of M/s.M.Staleen, counsel for the complainant and M/s.Majestic Law Firm, counsel for the oppostie party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service with respect to wrong blood group report given by the opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to seek unconditional apology to the complainant, to repay the entire medial expenses spent by the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite party along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

Being aggrieved by the wrong blood group report issued negligently by the opposite party the present complaint has been preferred.
The complainant, a pregnant woman approached the opposite party on 12.07.2022 for taking blood test to ascertain blood grouping and RH factor. At 12.02 pm the sample was given and the report was given at the same time on the very same day that the complainant’s blood group was “O” negative. As the complainant was shocked about the blood grouping immediately she approached Mother’s Specialist Hospital at Ambattur and took another blood test as she was in a belief that she had “O” positive blood group as per report of Appollo Diagnostic Center two years before at Tirchi. Mother’s Specialist Hospital reveals that her blood group was “O” positive. Immediately on knowing about the false report of opposite party the complainant started to bleed due to vasovagal shock and suffered fluid discharge for nearly one month and on 23.08.2022 got admitted in Sundaram Medical Foundation at Anna Nagar, for treatment where DNC was performed. Thus alleging that due to the wrong blood report she suffered miscarriage and thus aggrieved had preferred the present complaint stating that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service claiming for the following reliefs;
To direct the opposite party to seek unconditional apology to the complainant;
 To repay the entire medical expenses spent by the complainant;
 To pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite party along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
 The crux of defences put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed written version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that there is no cause of action for the complaint to be filed and that the Doctor’s name was stated wrongly and that no deficiency was committed by them.  It is stated that the complainant did not give proper sample for testing and due to dead cells in the sample the result might have been changed.  Further, it was stated that in some cases the blood type may change which was usual.  Thus stating that they are reputed lab having good name in the society and not committed any deficiency in service sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.8 was submitted.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents was filed.
 Point for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations made against the opposite party/ Lab with regard to issuing a wrong blood grouping report has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;
St. Lord lab report dated 12.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;
Mother’s Specialist Hospital Lab Report dated 12.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;
Appollo Hospital Lab Report dated 07.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 12.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
Sundaram Hospital Lab Report dated 20.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;
Discharge Summary of the complainant issued by Sundaram Medical Foundation dated 24.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A6;
Final bill issued by the Sundaram Medical Foundation in the name of complainant dated 27.08.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
Wedding invitation dated 04.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A8;
         Heard the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Inspite of sufficient opportunities no written arguments and oral arguments made by the opposite party.  Hence, their side arguments was closed on 15.06.2023.  Subsequently CMP.No.73/2023 was filed for reopening the side of opposite party for arguments. The said CMP was allowed but there was no representation for the petitioner/opposite party on 03.07.2023.  Hence on that day written arguments taken on record and considered for deciding the complaint on merits.
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that due to the wrong report given by the opposite party the complainant sustained stomach ache and bleeding which resulted in miscarriage.  Thus stating that the opposite party lab had committed deficiency in service, he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
In written arguments it is submitted by the opposite party that they deny the entire allegations raised by the complainant.  It is stated that there is chance for change in the blood type and it is normal.  Further, the legal notice was sent by the complainant’s father-in-law but the complaint was filed by the complainant. Thus, they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On perusal of the entire pleadings and materials it is seen that as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in the Report given by the opposite party (Ex.A1) it is stated that the sample was collected on 12.07.2022 /12:02pm and reported on 12.07.2022/12:02pm and also printed on 12.07.2022 /12:02pm. The blood grouping was mentioned as “O” negative. The said report was endorsed by an Pathologist, Anthologist and Microbiologist as found in the Report. The report given by Mother’s Specialist Hospital (Ex.A2) was also produced in which the Blood group was mentioned as “O” positive. The report taken by the complainant in Appollo Diagnostic Centre dated 07.03.2019 was also produced as Ex.A3 wherein the blood grouping was mentioned as “O” positive.  Further, the report taken at Sundaram Medical Foundation also confirms that the complainant’s Blood group was “O” positive.  Thus it is evidently proved that a wrong report was given by the opposite party. However, at Sundaram Medical Foundation the diagnosis for miscarriage and consequent DNC was mentioned as “PRIMIGRAVIDA AT 9+4 WEEKS OF GESTATION.  MISSED MISCARRIAGE, FAILED MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY, DILATATION AND EVACULATION DONE UNDER USG GUIDANCE”. Though wrong report was given there were no averments in the complaint that based on the wrong report any medical treatment was given to the complainant.  On the very same day i.e. on 12.07.2022 the doubt of the complainant was clarified by Mother’s Specialist Hospital Lab report. Hence we are of the view that no consequential damage was caused to the complainant by the wrong report.  However, issuing negligently a report on the part of the opposite party is a serious error and could be termed as clear deficiency in service.  The opposite party for the said act should be held liable for the same.  Our view was supported by a decision rendered by The STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND DEHRADUN in Sh. Arvind Kumar vs Dr. Surendra Kumar Kaushik in FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 / 2007 dated 05/10/2010 which squarely applies to the present facts of the case wherein it has been held as follows:
 
Having considered the broad features of the case, we see merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant. We may also take support from the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory Vs. Jagjeet Kaur; IV (2007) CPJ 157 (NC), wherein it has been held that when a wrong blood test report is given, it is immaterial as to whether or not any harm was caused to the patient and giving of wrong blood test report is itself a deficiency in service. Therefore, the case in hand is to be held to be a case of medical negligence in giving wrong blood test report by opposite party No. 1 and for that reason alone, the opposite party No. 1 was liable to be saddled with the liability to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant for the hardship, agony and pain suffered by him.

Thus we hold that the act of the opposite party amounts to clear negligence and deficiency in service. The defence taken by the opposite party that in some cases the blood grouping may differ after some age seems to be an illogical and unacceptable defence. Also the submission that the legal notice was issued by the complainant’s father-in-law but the complaint was filed by the complainant herself and hence the complaint has to be dismissed could not be accepted.  Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that the complaint allegations was successfully proved by the complainant.
Point No.2:-
Though we have held above that the opposite party had negligently given the blood report, the fact that no treatment based on the blood report was taken by the complainant like RH injection or blood transfusion resulting in irreparable loss to the complainant has to be considered while determining the relief to the complainant.  The factum of occurring miscarriage for complainant after one month i.e. on 23.08.2022 from the date of wrong report i.e. on 12.07.2022 seems to be unacceptable when the complainant had failed to produce any evidence to the effect that the miscarriage was the consequence of the wrong report issued by opposite party.  Merely stating that due to shock bleeding and fluid discharge started on seeing the wrong report could not lead to a conclusion that it is the opposite party’s blood report the root cause for the complainant’s miscarriage. In such facts and circumstances we award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant for the negligent blood report issued by them. Cost of Rs.5,000/- is also awarded towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing him
a) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
b)  To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
 Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13th day of July 2023.

   Sd/-                                                  Sd/-                                                           Sd/-
MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                              PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

Ex.A1 12.07.2022 St. Lord Lab Report. Xerox
Ex.A2 12.07.2022 Mother’s Specilist Hospital Lab Report. Xerox
Ex.A3 07.03.2019 Appollo Hospital Lab Report. Xerox
Ex.A4 12.08.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 20.08.2022 Sundaram Hospital Lab Report. Xerox
Ex.A6 24.08.2022 Discharge Summary of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 27.08.2022 In-patient final bill summary. Xerox
Ex.A8 04.03.2022 Wedding invitation. Xerox

List of document filed by the opposite party:-

-Nil-

       Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                 MEMBER-I                                 PRESIDENT