Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.
Concise fact of the case of the Complainant is that due to her illness the Complainant Jhuma Saha checked up through Doctor M. Das, MD Physician on 21.06.21 who prescribed some pathological test. Subsequently, the Complainant tested her blood through Tulana Lab for which she paid Rs.2,000/-. The said Tulana Lab sent it to the OP for blood test. The O.Ps supplied report on 25.06.21 vide patient Id. No. 594, Sample Id. 03517521. In this report Calcium total Serum was 4.12 Values and Potassium Serum 7.48. Both the Tulana Lab and the O.Ps did not issue any money receipt. The Complainant contacted with Doctor, P. Das who was astonished with the said report and advised for her admission at Dinhata and the Doctor mentioned the report dated 25.06.21. Subsequently, the Complainant contacted with Doctor Somnath Das, MD, Dinhata who examined him on 25.06.21 and advised for admission and also prescribed some medicines which the Complainant consumed. Suddenly on 07.07.21 the OP supplied a new Pathological test report with same date, time and patient Id in that report potassium was 4.12 values Calcium total serum 7.48. Having received the 2nd time report Complainant contacted with Doctor on 30.08.21 who advised to stop all previous advise and changed the medicines. Due to wrong diagnosis of the OP her life was under danger due to wrong consumption of medicines. So the Complainant submitted a written complaint to the OP on 19.08.21 but he did not receive it. So the present case is filed. The cause of action arose on 25.06.21 and on subsequent dates. The Complainant therefore prayed for an award for Rs.2,000/- for Patho Lab charge, Rs.3 Lakhs for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.
The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version denying each and every allegation. The positive defence case of the O.P. No.2 in brief is that the O.P. No.2 Doctor Subrata Paul is a Pathologist of MJN Govt. Medical College & Hospital with MD Degree and wide experience. The said patient went to Tulana Lab which collected sample and sent it to Doctor Sarkar’s Patho Lab, O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.2 is a consultant pathologist of O.P. No.1 who after performing such test gave his impression after examining the blood sample and submitted report. He had no fault. Moreover, it was clearly mentioned in the report that if test reports are alarming or unexpected client is advised to contact the Lab immediately for possible remedial action. So in case of any problem he was advised to contact forthwith but he did not follow. The O.P. No.2 found serum potassium label 4.12 and calcium 7.48 but during typing human error Patho Lab staff wrongly put the values inter charging the same. Wherein the O.P. No.2 has nothing to do. The report had been issued using scanned signature of the O.P. No.2 Doctor on the basis of test log book wherein the actual values were put by O.P. No.2. So he had no chance to recheck the same. It was a purely clerical error. The Complainant did not contact with the testing laboratory as advised and for their fault they could not be frastened. It is the fault of the Complainant that they did not contact directly to O.P. No.1 Lab or O.P. No.2 Doctor. The O.P. No.1 corrected their typographical mistake forthwith. The O.P. No.2 therefore claimed that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The positive defence case of O.P. No.1 in brief is that neither the Complainant is service recipient from the O.P. No.1 nor is O.P. No.1 is a service provider to the claimant but Tulana Lab is the service recipient from the O.P. No.1. On 25.06.21 the blood test reports were sent to the Tulana Lab with corrected report. In the bottom of all the reports, it is mentioned “if test report are alarming or unexpected client is advised to contact with the laboratory for possible remedial action”. But neither the Complainant nor Tulana Lab did contact with O.Ps. The Complainant suppressed the corrected report dated 25.06.21 before Doctor Somnath Das wherein she was treated with intention to squiz money from O.Ps. The Complainant had no direct nexus with the O.Ps. The OP therefore prayed for the dismissal of the case.
The conflicting fact of the case and denial thereof led this Commission to ascertain the following points for consideration.
Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the CP Act?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief if any the Complainant is entitled?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1.
The Complainant categorically stated that she paid Rs.2,000/- for the said blood test which was ultimately sent to the O.Ps Tulana Lab. The O.P. No.1 denied that they are not the service provider to the Complainant and they did not receive any money from the Complainant. It is the admitted position that Complainant paid Rs.2000/- to Tulana Lab. But there is no document to show that the Complainant directly paid any money to O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. So in order to bring the O.Ps within the arena of service provider Tulana Lab is a necessary and proper party.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is disposed of with the finding to ascertain in presence of the Tulana Lab.
Point Nos. 2 & 3.
These points relate to entitlement of relief by Complainant. The Complainant although claimed that she paid Rs.2,000/- to Tulana Lab, yet the O.Ps denied to have received any money from the Complainant.
That apart O.P. No.1 also challenged the status of the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant is neither the service recipient nor is the OP service provider. On the other hand Tulana Lab shall be deemed to be the service recipient from the O.P. No.1 and the Complainant is service recipient from Tulana Lab who is not a party to this case.
So, the question raised by the O.Ps relate to both question of fact and question of law which demands for adjudication of this case in presence of the said Tulana Lab. It is also a question as to whether the money paid by the Complainant was ultimately paid to the O.Ps through Tulana Lab. Therefore, evidence of said Tulana Lab is required so that the actual truth is disclosed before this Commission.
Thus, in the back drop of the aforesaid discussion and observation made herein above the present case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. The said Tulana Lab should be brought in to record for just and effective disposal of the case.
Point Nos. 2 & 3 are accordingly disposed of.
In the result the present case fails.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the complaint case No. CC/50/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest with a liberty to the Complainant to file the case afresh after making Tulana Lab a party to the case.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.
Note the Trial Register.
Dictated and corrected by me.
