CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.485/2015
Dated this the 26th day of September 2019.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay him the hospital and treatment expenses of Rs.15,250/- incurred by him due to the wrong lab report given by them regarding his INR and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other hardships suffered and also cost of the proceedings.
Petitioner’s case is that, he was under the treatment of Dr.Bijoy at MIMS hospital Kozhikode and in connection with his treatment he had tested his INR at that hospital on 30.05.2015 and the test report showed the INR as 1.19. Since he need to keep the level of INR between 2 and 3, the Doctor advised to take medicine and to test the INR after one week. As such after taking medicine as prescribed by the doctor he again tested the INR at the opposite parties Lab on 05.06.2015 and the result was 9.9. Continuing the medicine he consulted the doctor at Perambra Taluk hospital on 08.06.2015 and after going through the report of the opposite parties the doctor told him that the level of INR is very high and critical and this will cause bleeding in the brain and stomach and advised to consult the doctor at MIMS without delay. So immediately he went to MIMS hospital Kozhikode and was admitted there and kept under observation for 12 hours and after several tests the INR was again tested and found 1.98. Then it became clear that the test report from the opposite parties lab was wrong.
The petitioner further stated that, thereafter he addressed a notice to the opposite parties stating the facts and demanding the treatment expenses along with compensation for his sufferings. The opposite parties received the notice and through mediators informed him that there happened a mistake in the test result and it was due to the fault of the materials used for the test and so they are ready to compensate his losses and requested not to take any steps against them in this regard. But the opposite parties have not compensated him as promised. It is also stated that the lab technician was not qualified to conduct such tests. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties he had suffered much mental agony and other untold sufferings apart from the heavy financial loss. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.
The 1st opposite party filed version denying all the allegations of the petitioner as false and baseless. It is stated that, he is not the owner of the Institute but only an employee there and this petition without impleading the Institute and its owner in the opposite party array is not maintainable also. It is admitted that the petitioner had came to their lab for INR test on 05.06.2015 and on test the result was found 9.9. There is no error in the test or any fault in the materials used for the test. The allegation that the person who had conducted the test was not qualified was denied as incorrect and stated that the test was done by authorized and qualified technician and the material used was Tulip which is one of the leading material in this field. From the result it is found that the level of INR was high and so they informed and convinced the petitioner this matter and its consequences then and there and advised to stop the medicine and to consult a doctor immediately.
The allegation of the petitioner that they have not informed him that the INR was high or advised to consult a doctor and so he continued the medicine and only when the doctor at Taluk hospital Perambra informed about the critical stage of INR on n08.06.2015 he came to know about its seriousness and so immediately he went to MIMS hospital and there he was kept under observation for 12 hours at the emergency ward and after several tests it is identified that the INR was normal ie. 1.98 but due to the wrong test report given by the opposite parties he had suffered much mental pain and had spent Rs.15,250/- as hospitalisation and treatment expenditure etc. were denied as not true or correct and stated that as per their advice the petitioner had stopped consumption of the medicine and that is why the INR came down to the level of 1.98 when tested at MIMS hospital after 3 days.
The allegation that, they had admitted their mistake and promised to compensate the petitioners losses through a mediator but later they withdrawed their promise and has not compensated him etc. was denied as false and stated that, they never made any such promise to the petitioner as alleged. The test was conducted at their lab during the course of the medicine to increase INR and so it is quite natural that the level of INR will be high in such situation. The test result from their lab was correct and there was no error in the result also. Their lab is a renowned firm in Perambra having 30 years history of good practice and not a single complaint was lodged against them by anybody before any authority except this petition. There is no deficiency in service on their side as alleged and the petitioner has not suffered any loss or injury due to their act and hence they are not liable to compensate the petitioner in any manner and so prayed to dismiss the petition with compensatory cost.
As per the order in IA.227/16 the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were impleaded in the opposite parties array.
The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed a joint version with the same contentions as that of the 1st opposite party. They also denied all the allegations of the petitioner as false and frivolous, and contended that, the test result was correct and the petitioner has not suffered any loss or injury due to their act and so prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
Evidence consists of the affidavits filed by the petitioner, the opposite parties, Ext.A1 to A8 and depositions of PW1, PW2 and RW1.
According to the opposite parties the INR of the petitioner when they tested the same on 05.06.2015 was 9.9 and it was correct also. The reason for the abnormal increase of INR was due to the consumption of medicine for increasing the same as prescribed by Dr.Bijoy from MIMS hospital. They have informed the petitioner about the seriousness and consequences of such a rise in the INR and advised him to stop the medicine and to consult the doctor immediately. Though the petitioner had stopped medicine as per their advise he went to the hospital only after 3 days and that is why the INR showed 1.98 when tested at MIMS hospital on 08.06.2015. This statement was denied by the petitioner and according to him the opposite parties have not stated anything about the seriousness of such a hike in the INR or advised to consult the doctor immediately as stated. Ext.A5 is the prescription given to the petitioner from Taluk hospital Perambra on 08.06.2015. Ext.A6 is the Lab result issued from MIMS hospital. Ext.A6 shows that the petitioner was admitted at MIMS hospital on the same day itself ie. on 08.06.2015. According to the petitioner, based on the advice of the Doctor at Taluk hospital he was admitted at MIMS hospital on 08.06.2015 itself. This shows that if the opposite parties had informed the petitioner regarding the seriousness of the abnormal hike in the INR and had advised to consult a doctor immediately then the petitioner would have definitely go to the hospital on the same day ie, on 05.06.2015 itself without delay. So we are of the view that, the contention of the opposite parties that they have informed the seriousness of high INR to the petitioner and advised him to consult a doctor immediately is not true.
Sri.Arun Jyothish the 3rd opposite party was examined as RW1. In corss examination he would say that, in normal case if the INR goes above 5 it is critical value and there is every chance of internal bleeding. To a specific question “can a person go by walk from the lab when his INR is 9.9? the answer was it is possible if he takes anti-dote. The said statement of RW1 shows that a person cannot go by walk when his INR is 9.9 without taking anti-dote to bring the INR level normal. Here there is no evidence to the effect that the petitioner had taken any anti dote from there on 05.06.2015 even then he returned from the opposite parties lab without any problem. Likewise there is no evidence that the petitioner had any bleeding or any other difficulties during the following days or at the time when he was admitted at MIMS hospital on 08.06.2015. Moreover in the discharge advice ext.A2 issued from MIMS hospital, there is no mention of any anti –dote given to the petitioner also. In Ext.A2 it is seen that the petitioner is advised to continue ongoing medications. All these shows that the report given by the opposite parties regarding the INR of the petitioner was wrong.
Ext.A8 is the letter given to the petitioner by Sri.K.K. Sreedharan, a tax practitioner at Perambra. In Ext.A8 it is stated that, a compromise talk was conducted between the petitioner and the representatives of the opposite parties at his office on 20.06.2015. In that talk the opposite parties admitted that the reason for the mistake in the lab report was due to the fault of the medicine used for the test and so they will solve the problem after consultation with the Company. Sri.K.K.Sreedharan was examined as PW2. In cross he deposed that, he is having only 3 or 4 months of acquaintance with the petitioner and what he had stated in ext.A8 letter is true. Considering the status of PW2 as a tax practitioner and his statement that he had only 3,4 months of acquaintance with the petitioner, it is found that PW2 is not a close friend of the petitioner in order to give a false letter to the petitioner or to give any false evidence before this forum in favour of the petitioner. So we didn’t find any reason to disbelieve or discard Ext .A8 letter and deposition of PW2.
So from the evidence on record it is found that the lab report given to the petitioner by the opposite parties showing his INR as 9.9 was wrong. Giving a wrong test report and thereby causing financial loss and other hardships to the petitioner amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result, the following order is passed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay to the petitioner his hospitalization and treatment expenses of Rs.15,250/- along with Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and other hardships suffered by the petitioner and family and Rs.3000/- as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the entire amount will carry 7% interest from the date of default till payment.
Dated this 26th day of September 2019.
Date of filing: 16.09.2015.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Letter issued by the complainant to the laboratory dtd.13.06.2015.
A2. Discharge advice of MIMS Institute of Emergency Medicine
A3. MIMS Laboratory services dtd.30.05.2015
A4. Result of Saroj Diagnostic Laboratory dtd.05.06.2015.
A5.Taluk Hospital Perambra dtd.08.06.2015.
A6. MIMS Laboratory result dtd.08.06.2015.
A7. Postal acknowledgment dtd.13.06.2015.
A8. Settlement meeting of Saroj Diagnostic laboratory and Management
dtd.20.06.2015
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. V.P.Sreedharan (Complainant)
PW2. Sreedharan, Sreenilayam, (Tax Practitioner of Perambra)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Arun Jyothish, Kattakayam.(H) Perambra.PO, Kozhikode
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
