06-10-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.
- Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgement passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose -vs- M. Aby & ors.
- Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears on behalf of the respondent.
- On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay of about 1 day in filing this appeal is condoned.
- The case of the respondent-complainant in short was as follows. He was advised to get X-ray of (R) elbow and skull. He went to Clini Lab of the O.P.No.1 – appellant no.1, where O.P. No.2 was consultant Radiologist. The appellants did the X-ray but handed over the report of chest on 23.4.2010. In the said X-ray report, the name of the doctor under whom he was undergoing treatment was also mentioned. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of appellant no.2.
- The case of the O.Ps. in short, was as follows. The complainant did not produce the alleged X-ray film of chest before the District Forum. A false and fabricated document was filed forging the signature of the consultant Radiologist. Two X-ray of skull and Right elbow were done on 24.4.2010, as advised by the doctor treating the complainant. Neither chest X-ray was done nor the chest X-ray film and report of the complainant was handed over to him. The X-ray plate/ film and report of skull and right elbow were handed over to him, which will appear from the delivery receipt and the X-ray report.
Further, the doctor treating the complainant in his prescription dated 23.4.2010 clearly written that he saw the X-ray of elbow and , X-ray of skull, which shows that as per the advice X-raywere done and shown to the doctor. Therefore a false and fabricated claim has been raised by the complainant to squeeze money.
- In the impugned judgement, the District Forum, interalia held as follows;
“But going through the case record and documents filed by the parties it seems that the O.Ps. have taken two X-rayone of lungs portion and another of skull& right elbow and by mistake both reports were handed over to the complainant causing some confusion in his method. It shows deficiency in service of both O.Ps. and complainant is entitled for refer to same extat”.
7. It appears from the delivery slip and the X-ray report (Annexures 4 and 5) that X-ray of Right elbow and skull was done on 23.4.2010. In my view, after holding that there was mistake due to which some confusion was caused, it could not be held that there was deficiency in service by the appellants. Further even according to the impugned judgement, the complainant did not file the cash memo and bills against the expenses claimed. In such circumstances, the order for payment of medical expense of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 21,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost, cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned judgement is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.
Ranchi,
Dated:- 06-10-2015
