KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 41/2021

JUDGMENT DATED: 18.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 173/2019 of CDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                    : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                         : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Shrivari Sono Scans, C.T. Complex, Near Josco Jewellery, Main Road, Kanhangad-671 315, represented by its proprietor Dr. K.S. Bhat.

   (By Adv. Sanil Jose)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sureshan T.M., Thyvalappil House, Kodoth, Kodoth P.O., Kasaragod-671 531.

(Party in person)

JUDGMENT

SRI.RANJIT. R: MEMBER

The opposite party has filed the appeal against the order dated 29.01.2021 in C.C. No. 173/2019 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short). The District Commission by its order directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation along with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. 

2.  The case of the complainant is that he was suffering from stomach pain and on 12.07.2019 he consulted Dr. Beena and she advised the complainant to take scanning at the opposite party’s scanning centre.  Accordingly scanning was conducted on him and the scanning report issued by opposite party revealed that there was serious illness in the liver and gallbladder.  Dr. Beena then advised the complainant to have expert medical treatment.  Therefore, the complainant went to Kasthurba Medical College (KMC) for scanning and further treatment.  After the scanning test carried out at KMC it was noted that complainant was not suffering from any illness in the liver or gall bladder.  Since the opposite party issued a wrong scan report which suggested liver disease, he suffered much mental agony and hardships.  Hence he filed the complaint for compensation against the opposite party. 

3.  The opposite party filed version contending that Sono scanning was done as per the advice of Dr. Beena. Sonological scanning report and finding are as per the records. They further contended that there was no deficiency in service or negligence in doing the scanning of the complainant.   Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4. Evidence consists of oral testimony of the complainant as PW1.  Complainant has also produced 11 documents.  The opposite party did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

5.  The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the complainant and hearing both parties found that there was medical negligence on the part of the opposite party in giving erroneous scan report and for that the complainant was to be compensated.  On the basis of the said finding the District Commission directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and also pay Rs. 3,000/- as costs of the proceedings. 

6.  Heard both parties and perused the records.  The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there was no evidence to show that the impression of the KMC, Mangalapuram was correct.  The District Commission without any proof of correctness of that report held that the said report was correct.  The impression shown in the report of the appellant goes to show that the entire abdomen was normal except for some mild enlargement of the liver.  They never advised any treatment for such condition and have no authority to do so.  The District Commission without having coming to a conclusion that the scan report issued by KMC was correct, ought not to have passed an order against the appellant.  The finding of the District Commission that the opposite party had given erroneous scan report is without any evidence or proof.  No expert evidence is adduced as to find out which report was correct. Without clearly knowing whether the scan report produced by the opposite party was wrong, the order of the District Commission ought not to have passed the order granting compensation.  Therefore the order is wrong.  In view of the above, it is prayed that the appeal is to be allowed and the complaint is to be dismissed. 

7.  The respondent who was present in person reiterated the grounds stated in his complaint.  He further contended that the scan report given by the appellant suggesting that he had problem with the liver and gall bladder was wrong.  He contended that the blood test carried out at KMC and the scan report clearly shows that there is no problem with his liver or gall bladder.  Thus he contended that the finding of the District Commission that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party was correct and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 

8.  We have considered the contentions raised by both the parties and also perused the records.  The specific case of the complainant is that he was having stomach pain and so he consulted Dr. Beena.  Dr. Beena advised him to take ultra sound scan of the abdomen and therefore approached the appellant for abdominal scan.  The ultra sound scan was done on 13.07.2019.The impression of the scan report shows that (1) uniformly enlarged liver shows coarse echotexture with prominent echogenic IHBR. (2) Distended gall bladder with reactionary wall edema.  The complainant again consulted Dr. Beena with this scan report.  Since as per the scan report there was serious problem in the liver and gall bladder he was advised to get an expert medical treatment.  The complainant as per the doctor’s advice went to KMC where he underwent several tests including scanning and blood test on 15.07.2019.  All the tests suggested that there was no problem in the liver or gall bladder.  He had unnecessarily undergone much mental agony and hardship due to the wrong report made by the appellant.  To prove his case the complainant has produced 11 documents, all are medical reports and also adduced oral evidence. The scan report issued by KMC dated 15.07.2019 just two days after the first report shows that there was no obvious sonological abnormality detected in the abdomen and pelvis.   Further Gastro- duodenoscopy done at KMC on 15.07.2019 itself shows that there was normal Gastro-duodenoscopy.  These reports show that there was no problem in the liver or gallbladder.  Further blood and urine tests were also carried out on 15.07.2019 to check whether there was problem in the liver or gallbladder. The lab reports (4 in Nos.) dated 15.07.2019 also show that there was no problem with the liver or gall bladder.  These reports suggested that the complainant has no serious disease as against the report given by the opposite party.  Further, the complainant has deposed that he was not treated for any disease connected with liver or gall bladder thereafter.  The opposite party while cross examining the complainant did not challenge the correctness of the scan report or other tests carried out at KMC.  Moreover, opposite party has not given any oral or documentary evidence in support of their case.  Since the scan report and blood tests carried out at KMC just two days after the scan report of the opposite party suggest that there was no problem either in the liver or gall bladder, it would clearly show that the scan report issued by the opposite party was wrong.  In the above circumstances, no expert evidence was required to conclude that the scan report issued by the pathologist of the Sono Scan was wrong.  Issuing of wrong scan report is as a result of the negligence by the Pathologist in scanning the patient.  It is a clear case of deficiency in service and negligence in diagnosing the illness of the patient and issuing an erroneous test result.  Issuing wrong report which suggested serious problem with the liver naturally will cause much mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

9.  The District Commission under the above circumstances has correctly held that there was medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and ordered compensation to the complainant.  We find no error in the order of the District Commission or other reason for any interference by this Commission.  The order of the District Commission is therefore confirmed.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to suffer their respective costs. 

                           Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                            Sd/-

                                                             RANJIT. R                      : MEMBER

                            Sd/-

                                                         BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                          Sd/-

                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb