Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 550.
Instituted on : 07.10.2016.
Decided on : 06.12.2018.
Sudhir Kumar son of Subhash Chander resident of House no.189/6, Chunipura, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Sukhija MRI Centre, Chhottu Ram Chowk, Rohtak, through its Proprietor/Director.
- Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jawahar Market, Model Town, Rothak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.R.S.Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Anil Balhara, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.R.K.Bhardwaj Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.03.2016 the complainant was not feeling well, so he approached the respondent where Dr. Raman Sukhija diagnosed him and suggested him for renal function tests, liver function test and lipid profile. That complainant got conducted all the tests from the respondent’s lab and thereafter report was handed over to him. In the said report, the respondents have shown high rate of blood urea, S. Cretina, S. Sodium and S. Potassium and told that the kidney of the complainant has been failed. After that complainant got contacted with Dr. Rajeev Gupta, Karnal and sent his all reports to said doctor and after seeing all the reports, said doctor called the complainant to his hospital. That on 21.03.2016 all his tests were again conducted at Amritdhara Hosptial, Karnal and doctor opined that the complainant is quite normal in all respect. That complainant got conducted another test from another clinical lab and in said report also, his report was found normal. That due to wrong report supplied by the OPs, complainant and his family members remained under mental tension and suffered harassment, pain and agony. That due to negligence of OPs, complainant had to spent a huge amount on his treatment. That the act of OPs is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation on account of causing mental tension, harassment and deficiency in service alongwith interest and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant visited to diagnostic centre of respondent on 18.03.2016 and asked Dr. Mrs. Raman Sukhija for some tests which were advised to him by some doctors and complainant underwent the tests. In which his renal function test was found to be abnormal. After receiving report, the complainant did not met with Dr. Raman Sukhija for discussion about the reports and directly made complaint to CMO from where the respondent received a letter after a month or so from SMO Civil Hospital, Rohtak for which enquiry was ordered, but the complainant did not appear on the dates of enquiry. That Dr. Raman Sukhija submitted his written reply in the matter to the concerned enquiry officer. That complainant was not told that the kidney of the complainant has been failed. That the complainant had to meet with respondent before consulting with any other doctor. That respondent did not supply any wrong report to complainant and no harassment has been caused to the complainant or his family members. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and dismissal of complaint has been sought. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that Sukhija MRI Centre is not insured with the opposite party insurance company and the respondent is falsely involved in this case. The insurance company has no concern with this case. That no policy particulars are supplied by the Sukhija MRI Centre after repeated requests, therefore the insurance company has no liability and is an unnecessary party. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed against the answering opposite party.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, Ex.PW2/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, ld. counsel for OP No1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and failed to conclude its evidence and as such the evidence of OP No.2 was closed by the order dated 31.10.2018 of this Forum.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case, complainant had underwent some tests and three reports have been placed on record by the complainant. Firstly Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 which are issued by Sukhija MRI dated 20.03.2016, secondly Ex.P4 issued by Hospsital Amrit Dhara at Karnal dated 21.03.2016 and 3rd one of Sikka Clinical Lab Karnal dated 21.03.2016. A legal notice was also issued on behalf of the complainant which is Ex.P8. In reply, the respondent no.1 placed on record the reply of legal notice which is Ex.R1, the reply to CMO, Rohtak which is Ex.R2 and reports of different persons are Ex.R3 to Ex.R7. It is also on record that the complainant has placed on record affidavit Ex.PW2/A of Dr. Om s/o Chhuni Lal Age 42 years, doctor of Amrit Dhara Hospital,Chura Bazar Karnal in favour of his claim but the perusal of this affidavit shows that on the first page, the name of doctor is mentioned as Dr. Om s/o Sh. Chunni Lal whereas the signatures on the affidavit as well as on the verification is of Dr. Rajiv Gupta, so the affidavit itself seems to be false and fabricated document.
6. After going through all the reports, we found that there is a major difference between the test reports of blood urea. As per report of Sukhija MRI Ex.P3, the patient has value of blood urea upto 77.8mg/dl(normal value 15-45mg/dl), as per report of Hospital Amrit Dhara Ex.P4, the same value is found 32mg/dl (normal range 15-45mg) and in the report of the Sikka Clinical Lab Ex.P5, the value is 18mg/dl(normal range 10-45mg/dl). There are minor differences between the other test reports i.e. S.Creatinine, Serum Sodium etc. The major differences found only in blood urea. The complainant took two samples on dated 21.03.2016 in Karnal. In the report issued by Hospital Amrit Dhara the value of blood urea is found as 32mg/dl whereas on the same day as per the report issued by Sikka Clinical Lab, same was found 18 mg/dl. As per respondent counsel, the blood urea may be fluctuate due to many prerenal causes (cardiac decompensation, water depletion due to decreased intake and excessive loss, increased protein catabolism, and high protein diet). It is further submitted that neither any wrong report was supplied to the complainant nor the complainant was told that the kidney of the complainant has been failed. It is also contended that the complainant has not placed on record any medical expert’s evidence to prove his case. Ld. counsel for OP has also placed reliance upon the law 111(2010)CPJ 109(SC) Kolkata titled as Sandip Dhar Vs. Midland Nursing Home Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., III(2014)CPJ 141(NC) titled as Badam Agaiah & Ors. Vs. Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy and IV(2014) CPJ 113(NC) titled as Consumer Protection Council& Anr. Vs. Tiruchi Speciality Hospital & Anr..
7. In view of the aforesaid law, which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we come to the conclusion that in the absence of any medical expert’s evidence, complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
06.12.2018.
....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
…………………………..
Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.
