Complaint No: 274 of 2019.

                                                                Date of Institution: 27.08.2019.

                                                                         Date of order:26.02.2024.

1.       Baljit Singh Dhaliwal aged about 67 years Son of Sh. Shingara Singh, resident of Near Government Primary School, Village Ghurala, P.O. Ghurala, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. (Aadhaar Card No. 7103 2836 2134).

2.       Mohinder Kaur Dhaliwal, W/o Sh. Baljit Singh Dhaliwal, resident of Near Government Primary School, Village Ghurala, P.O. Ghurala, Gurdaspur, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. (Aadhaar Card No. 6014 5193 3134).

                                                                                                                                                               …..........Complainants.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                        VERSUS

1.       Tuli Clinical Laboratory, Near Post office Chowk, Jail Road, Gurdaspur – 143521, through its Chief of Laboratory.

2.       Dr. Lal Path Labs Ltd., Block E, Sector – 18, Rohini, New Delhi – 110085, through its Chief of Laboratory.

3.       SRL Diagnostics, SRL Limited., SCO – 44, Nagpal Tower – II, B – Block, Ranjit Avenue, Near M.K. Hotel Amritsar – 143001, Punjab (INDIA), through its Lab Head & Consultant Pathologist.

4.       The Oriental India, Insurance Company Ltd., having address at 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandelwalan, New Delhi – 110055. (In array of R – 1).

5.       The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Regd. & Head Office New India Assurance Bldg. 87, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001, through its Principal Officer, service, through its Branch Manager, Branch G.T. Road, Gurdaspur – 143521. (In array of R – 3).

                                                                                                                                                                     ….Opposite parties.

                                                          Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainants: Sh.S.S. Litter, Advocate.

             For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Satyan Khajuria, Advocate.

            For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate.

            For the Opposite Party No.3: Sh.Updip Singh and Sh.A.K. Dutta, Advocates.

           For the Opposite Party No.4: Sh.A.K. Joshi, Advocate.

           For the Opposite Party No.5: Sh.Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocate.  

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Baljit Singh and Mohinder Kaur, Complainants (here-in-after referred to as complainants) have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Tuli Clinical Lab. Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant No. 1 namely Sh. Baljit Singh Dhaliwal, is a retired person, who has retired from the post of Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Officer on dated 30.09.2010, and his wife i.e. the complainant No. 2 namely Smt. Mohinder Kaur Dhaliwal has also retired from the post of P.H.N Tutor M.P.H.W.F Training school, Civil Hospital Gurdaspur on dated 31.08.2012, both are educated, well qualified persons and having good knowledge and experience in their respective fields and are also having good reputation in the society. It is pleaded that the complainant No. 2  namely Smt. Mohinder Kaur Dhaliwal, has been suffering from the ailment of THYROID since the period of previous some years, and she is also under medical Treatment of Kaushal Hospital, G.T. Road, Gurdaspur. So, whenever, concerned Doctor has suggested the complainant No. 2 for the test report of THYROID, She visited to the Lab of the OP No. 1 and her sample was taken by the OP No. 1 and same has been sent to the Lab of the OP’s No. 2 or 3 by the OP No. 1, after receiving test fee under receipts, which is mentioned and described in details as under:-

It is further pleaded that the test reports of THYROID as mentioned in Sr. No. 9, dated 10.08.2019, of  Dr. Lal Path, (OP No. 2)  Showing TSH result as 0.69, and in Sr. No. 10, only after one day, i.e. on dated 12.08.2019 of SRL, Diagnostics, (OP No.3) Showing TSH result as 7.621, are unsatisfactory as per the treatment in respect of medicines dose taken by the complainant No. 2 and also as per the advice of concerned Doctor, because, after receiving above mentioned both tests reports, the complainant No. 2 alongwith her husband i.e. the complainant No. 1, visited to the Hospital of concerned Doctor, on dated 17.08.2019 and consulted Doctor also shocked and stunned after reading and medically examine, both reports, and he again suggested his patient i.e. the complainant No. 2 for the THYROID test in other third one lab on her own choice, similarly, the complainant No. 2 visited to Chinna Clinical Laboratory, on dated 19.08.2019, as mentioned above in Sr. No. 11, where, her sample was taken and the same was sent to Thyrocare Lab, and TSH showing result as 3.63 was prepared by Thyrocare Lab, and the same was produced before concerned Doctor, and this report was proved to be satisfactory one as per the Medicine Dose taken by the complainant No. 2 and advice of concerned Doctor. It is further pleaded that in case, if the concerned Doctor, prescribe medicine dose, as per the above mentioned tests reports of the OP’s, then in that case, the complainant No. 2 would must loss her life as per the wrong advice and suggestion of concerned Doctor, But, Thank God, as per good advice of Concerned Doctor, Her life may be saved. As per the false, bogus and unsatisfactory tests reports, some innocent people have to loss their lives, and for the same lives loss, the Labs are responsible, on the basis of which, concerned Doctor prescribes their patients for medicines dose. It is further pleaded that after receiving above mentioned tests reports, as mentioned in Sr. No. 9, 10 and 11, both the complainants reached to the Lab of the OP No. 1, and also asked about the differences of TSH tests in said reports, and also advised to the OP’s No. 1, 2 and 3 not to play with the lives of some innocent illiterate patients/public, who belief blindly upon the tests reports of the OP’s. It is further pleaded that act of the OP’s is malafide and so dangerous, because of which, some healthy person may lose his life, and which also amounts to deficiency in service on their part. It is further pleaded that due to above mentioned malafide and negligence act, the complainants have to suffer mentally and physically, and after reading the same reports in question, the complainants have also face from depression and mental agony. It is further pleaded that the above said malafide and negligence act of the OP’s could not fulfill the loss, in case, if the complainant No. 2 may loss her life due to over dose of medicines, However, the complainants with the intention to penalize the OP’s, also requested to compensate them, but they failed to pay any heed to the genuine and legal requests made by the complainants. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainants have suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainants have alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to not to play the lives of lots of patients/public, by preparing false, bogus, unsatisfactory tests reports and they may further be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- as mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants and any other relief, for which, this Hon’ble Commission deems sustainable may also be granted to the complainants and the complaint of the complainants may kindly be allowed, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the answering OP No. 1. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties. The complainant No. 1 has got no locus standi to file the present suit and the present complaint is bad for want of expert evidence. It is pleaded that the answering OP No. 1 is running his laboratory at Jail Road Gurdaspur Since 1999 and his Lab is one of the best labs of the District. The answering OP No. 1 has also got various appreciation certificates from district authorities due to his fair and sincere work. The answering OP No. 1 is also authorized sample collector of the OP’s No. 2 & 3 whose job is only to collect the samples of the OP’s No. 2 and 3 and send the same to their processing lab for examination. It is further pleaded that Smt. Mohinder Kaur Dhaliwal had given her samples to the answering OP No. 1 and told her that she has been advised by her doctor to get the same examined from the labs of the OP’s No. 2 and 3 only which are renowned labs of the country. The answering OP No. 1 as per her directions collected her blood samples and sent the same to the processing labs of the OP’s No. 1 and 3 after receiving the prescribed fees. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 1 is only a sample collector of the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and his job is only to collect the samples of the patients and send the same to the OP’s No. 2 and 3 and this act is very much within the knowledge of the complainants. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is hence legally not maintainable against the answering OP No. 1 as the same as not done anything illegal. Moreover, the lab of the answering OP No. 1 is duly insured by the OP No. 4 vide professional liability (Medical Establishment) bearing insurance Policy No. 272200/48/2019/8725, effective from 23^rd August, 2018 to 22^nd August, 2019. The said insurance policy covers all the risks pertaining to the profession of the answering OP No. 1. It is further pleaded that no cause of action arose in favour of the complainants to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party No.1.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the Company / answering OP No. 2 states that no allegation, statement and contention, contained in the present complaint should be deemed admitted, save and except those specifically admitted to be true and correct. It is respectfully submitted that this be treated as a specific denial. Moreover, the present complaint is in gross abuse of the process of law and has been filed by the complainants with the sole purpose of harassing and pressurizing the Company / answering OP No. 2 to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainants. It is pleaded that the present complaint ought to be dismissed in limine as the same is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law. The allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any 'deficiency' in service within the meaning of the Section 2 (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is pertinent to note that the deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing and establishing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a prudent person. The complainants have not only failed to demonstrate any fault or inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance of the service rendered by the Company / answering OP No. 2, but also misrepresented material facts before this Hon'ble Commission. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 2 conducted the test basis the sample received from the OP No. 1. In the medical field it is an established principle that it is not possible to compare results of test reports based on samples drawn at different time, processed under different conditions and by different methods. The averments made in the complaint regarding reports dated 10.08.2019, 12.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 issued by 3 different path labs including the one by the answering OP No. 2, which is dated 10.08.2019, recording different values is further proof of the well-established medical fact. It is pertinent to note that Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (here-in-after referred as TSH for the sake of brevity) is a blood test that measures thyroid stimulating hormone. It is done in 12 hours fasting with preferred light diet on previous night blood specimen. To get accurate results for TSH one has to take into consideration following physiological reasons:-

• Avoid previous night heavy meals
• Observing at least 12 hours fasting before taking sample
• Avoiding intake of alcohol
• Changes in testing laboratories
• Variation in dosage for the treatment of Thyroid
• Initiation or discontinuance of a high fiber diet
• Initiation or discontinuance of calcium or iron supplements
• Excessive intake of soy products
• Potency fluctuations in the intake of medication
• Timing of administration of medication and pills.

It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 2 in its test reports has provided that if any unexpected result is indicated then in such case, the patient/client should contact the lab immediately. The extract from the reports of the OP No. 2 is being reiterated herein: “If the test results are alarming or unexpected, client is advised to contact the laboratory immediately for possible remedial action”. However, the complainants instead of approaching the answering OP No. 2 with their concerns and queries approached another lab. The said action shows malafide intention of the complainants to not obtain any redressal regarding the issues pertaining to the test reports from the answering OP No. 2 despite Company's bona fide efforts to resolve any and all grievances of the complainants relating to the said test reports. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 2 carried out the work assigned to them of performing a test on the samples provided and issued the report of the same to the best of their medical knowledge and expertise in the field of pathology and taking due reasonable care. The conduct of the OP No. 2 has been reasonable and does not reflect any 'deficiency' on part of the OP No. 2 as contemplated under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is also liable to be dismissed as the same fails to show any proof of loss of Rs.2,00,000/- which is claimed by the complainants. The entire claim of the complainants is not only baseless, but appears to be motivated with the sole intention of unjust enrichment at the cost of the Company's reputation. It is further pleaded that the report dated 10.08.2019 issued by the Company / answering OP No. 2, showing TSH reading @ 0.69 is well within the Bio Ref. Interval between 0.27 and 4.20.

          On merits, the opposite party No.2 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the complainants have not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands, have suppressed, and concealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Commission and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainants have filed the present complaint against the answering opposite party No. 3 with ulterior motive to harass the opposite party No. 3 and to extract illegal gains by extorting money from the answering opposite party No. 3. It is further pleaded that the answering opposite party No. 3 is not liable for any deficiency in services as the complaint and none of the reports show that because of the test report given by the opposite party No. 3, the complainants had suffered any delay in treatment/change in treatment or suffered monetarily, physically or mentally any loss and/or harassment. As such, the complaint is nothing, but a bundle of false facts, which deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that as per the complaint the complainants had repeatedly visited the lab of the opposite party No. 1 on various dates since 2017 until 19.08.2019. The complainant No. 2 was admittedly under regular medication for Thyroid. The opposite party No. 1 is responsible for collection, storage and transportation to the opposite party No. 3 for conducting requisite tests of sample. The answering opposite party No. 3 has received the sample on dated 12.08.2019 vide accession No. 0202SHO05187. The test was conducted using highly specialized equipment’s and the report was generated which was handed over to the opposite party No. 1 on the same day as per the Turn Around Time. The opposite party No. 1 is sending the samples for testing with the laboratory of the answering opposite party No. 3 under and direct client understanding. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 3 as a matter of daily routine conducts a Quality Control for every equipment. The opposite party No. 3 in support of this averment wishes to bring on record the Quality Control Run report dated 12.08.2019 for the equipment of the lab where test was performed. The complainants just wishes to drag the answering opposite party No. 3 into a false litigation and extort compensation filed by the present complaint, which is out rightly liable to be rejected as a frivolous complaint. It is further pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 3, hence no cause of action arises against the answering opposite party No. 3 and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the basis of the aforesaid reasons. However, the opposite party No. 3 would like to submit that there could be many reasons for the change of values of any test, which include, procedure followed up by the test performing Laboratory, equipment and reagent used by the performing Laboratory, time gap between the two or more test conducted by Laboratory, treatment and medication during the time gap, fasting time, fatty diet intake etc. which may impact the report of any patient. It is further pleaded that the complainants on dated 19.08.2019 again visited the opposite party No. 1 for same Tests, after a lapse of more than 4 days, further the complainants had not brought on record the previous medical reports which she had got from other Laboratory(s) in past as mentioned in the complaint. There might be a reason that the complainant's test value do differ / fluctuate in same manner as it is being demonstrated from the recent report under challenge. The complainants had not mentioned in its entire complaint that in past, the test value were more or less similar or do fluctuate and if yes, to what extent? However, in absence of past reports and medical history of the complainant No. 2 and considering the fact that the complainant was under regular medication since a long time, negligence on part of the answering opposite party No. 3 cannot be attributable. It is further pleaded that there are many reasons for different test values being observed in each test which can be attributed for change of values due to change of bio-chemistry of the complainant after the lapse of 5 days. The answering opposite party No. 3 in support of the aforesaid version hereby submits the supporting medical literature alongwith the written statement. The answering opposite party No. 3 reserves its rights to file more supporting medical literature/expert evidence at appropriate stage as and when required.  

          On merits, the opposite party No.3 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

6.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the replying OP No. 4 / insurance company, as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying OP / insurance company, hence, no direct liability can be fastened upon the replying OP / insurance company. In case, the Hon’ble Commission comes to conclusion that there is an error, omission or negligence in professional service on the part of the OP No. 1, then the replying OP No. 4 shall decide the claim case as per the terms and conditions of the policy in question. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. It is pleaded that the present complaint against the replying OP / Insurance Company is not maintainable and replying insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the complainants as under the terms and conditions of the 'Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy,' the alleged insured OP No. 1 did not give written intimation to the company regarding the present claim filed by the complainants against the OP No. 1 nor other required documents supplied by the OP No. 1 to the replying OP / insurance company. Hence, in absence of the required documents, the insurance company is not in a position to investigate the matter and to give the proper and complete reply of the complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. It is further pleaded that the policy in question is the reimbursement benefit policy for the alleged insured, if any omission or negligence is committed by the alleged insured respondent during the professional services of the OP No. 1, even in that case, the replying OP / insurance company is not liable to pay the claim until it is covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the liability of the replying OP / insurance company is fastened only subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that the OP’s are summoned in the present complaint without following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in dealing the medical negligence cases, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground only. The complaint is not disclosing any negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 as such the complaint is not maintainable. As per the contents of the complaint, the complainant has not pointed out any negligence on the part of the OP No. 1 during his professional services. As such the complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that the complaint is not supported by any expert opinion, as such without any expert opinion, the doctors cannot be summoned or held liable and the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, which is liable to be dismissed.

          On merits, the opposite party No.4 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

7.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.5 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainants is not maintainable as the complainant has filed this complaint against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to disclose deficiency, if any, in the services of the opposite parties. It is pleaded that all allegations made in the complaint, which are not specifically denied herein, are denied being false and baseless. The complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. At the very outset the replying opposite party No. 5 denies all the allegations, facts and averments stated in the complaint filed by the complainant except to the extent it is expressly admitted therein. The non-traversal of any paragraph should be read as categorical denial. It is further pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable against replying OP and is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon'ble Commission and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the replying opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that no copy of policy has been provided and in the absence of same there is no liability of insurance co. and even after providing the copy of policy it is subject to verification and till then it is denied that the alleged Hospital is insured with the answering OP. The OP No. 1 may be directed to produce the original policy on the file. Moreover, the period of policy submitted by the OP No. 3 does not cover any compensation demanded by the complainant for alleged Medical negligence on the part of the OP No. 3. So, the answering OP No.5 is not liable to reimburse the OP No. 3 for paying any compensation to the complainant for alleged medical negligence on the part of the OP No. 3 as per terms & conditions of the policy. The complainant never approached to the answering OP No. 5. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that even OP No. 3 never intimated the answering OP No. 5 regarding any such claim as per terms & conditions of the policy. It is further pleaded that the answering OP No. 5 is not liable to compensate the OP No. 3 in any manner. It is further pleaded that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The complainant has used Pick and use Policy & willfully not made Chinna Clinical Lab and Thyrocare as parties to the present complaint. It is most pertinent and necessary to make Chinna Clinical Lab and Thyrocare parties for the proper adjudication of the matter in hand. So, the present complaint may be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further pleaded that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the replying opposite party to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is an abuse of the process of law and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has failed to produce on record the medical opinion of the concerned medical practitioner so as to clarify whether the said medical practitioner was also of the opinion that the variance between the medical examinations was beyond permissible limits. It is only the medical practitioner who could have found the basis and not the complainant itself, who is having expert medical knowledge. Even otherwise the variance of levels (Test Reports) is subject to number of factors including, but not limited to time of the day when the sample was collected, the food intake, the medication and other related factors. In the absence of medical opinion of the specialized medical practitioner in the field of pathology the matter cannot be legally adjudicated.

          On merits, the opposite party No.5 has reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

8.       Learned counsel for the complainants has filed Self-Attested affidavit of Mohinder Kaur Dhaliwal, (Complainant No. 2) alongwith Self-Attested documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-20.

9.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Prem Tuli S/o Om Prakash Tuli, as Ex.RW-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 alongwith reply.

10.     Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has filed an affidavit of Ms. Anamika Tiwari, (Assistant Manager – Legal, Authorized Signatory of the Opposite Party No. 2) as Ex.OP-2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/4 alongwith reply.

11.     Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has filed an affidavit of Sh. Achin Aren, (Assistant Manager – Legal, SRL Limited, Gurugram) alongwith some other documents alongwith reply.

12.     Learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Harbans Lal, (Senior Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Pathankot) as Ex.OP-4/A alongwith other document as Ex.OP-4/1 alongwith reply.

13.     Learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Som Raj, (A.O, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pathankot) as Ex.OP-5/1 alongwith reply.

14.     Rejoinder not filed by the complainants.

15.     Written arguments filed by the complainants, opposite parties No.2 and 3 but not filed by the opposite parties No.1, 4 and 5.

16.     Counsel for complainants has argued that complainant No.2 was suffering from thyroid since the last some years and was undergoing treatment of Kaushal Hospital G.T. Road, Gurdaspur who suggested thyroid test and accordingly complainant No.2 visited Lab. of opposite party No.1 and the samples were further sent to opposite parties No.2 and 3 after receiving the fee. It is further argued that as per thyroid report mentioned at Sr. No.9 on 10.08.2019 opposite party No.2 has shown TSH result as 0.69 and after one day on 12.08.2019 opposite party No.3 had shown TSH result as 7.621 and since there was huge gap between the two reports. Doctor had suggested third thyroid test which was got conducted by complainant No.2 from Chinna Clinical Laboratory on 19.08.2019 and the TSH result was shows as 3.63 which was correct result and accordingly doctor has prescribed the medicines for the thyroid by relying upon report dated 19.08.2019 and life of the complainant No.2 was somehow saved by the doctor. The act of opposite parties No.1 to 3 amounts to deficiency in service.

17.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that opposite party No.1 has no role in conducting the test as the opposite party No.1 only collects blood samples and send the same to the lab. of opposite parties no.2 and 3 and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

18.     Counsels for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 have jointly argued that in the medical field it is not possible to compare results of test report based on samples drawn at different time, processed under different conditions and by different methods. Even the complaint regarding reports dated 10.08.2019, 12.08.2019 and 19.08.2019 issued by three different labs recording different values is further proof of the well-established medical fact. It is further argued that thyroid test is done in 12 hour fasting with preferred light diet on previous night blood specimen to get accurate results for TSH one has to take into consideration following physiological reasons i.e.

• Avoid previous night heavy meals
• Observing at least 12 hours fasting before taking sample
• Avoiding intake of alcohol
• Changes in testing laboratories
• Variation in dosage for the treatment of Thyroid
• Initiation or discontinuance of a high fiber diet
• Initiation or discontinuance of calcium or iron supplements
• Excessive intake of soy products
• Potency fluctuations in the intake of medication
• Timing of administration of medication and pills.

It is further argued that complainant had not reported the variations of results to opposite parties No.2 and 3 and as such there is no deficiency in service can be attributed to opposite parties no.2 and 3.

19.     Counsel for the opposite party no.4 has argued that no claim has been lodged with the company and as such there is no liabity of opposite party.

20.     Counsel for the opposite party no.5 has argued that no claim has been lodged with the company and as such there is no liabity of opposite party.

21.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

22.     To prove their case complaint No.2 has placed on record her affidavit, copy of receipt Ex.C1, copy of report Ex.C2, copy of receipt Ex.C3, copy of report Ex.C4, copy of receipt Ex.C5, copy of report Ex.C6, copy of prescription slip Ex.C7, copies of labs reports Ex.C8 to Ex.C20 whereas opposite party No.1 has placed on record affidavit of Prem Tuli Ex.RW-1, copy of policy of insurance Ex.R-1, copies of certificate of appreciation Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4. Opposite party No.2 has placed on record affidavit of Ms.Anamika Tiwari Ex.OP-2/1/A, Authority letter Ex.OP-2/1, certificate of accreditation Ex.OP-2/2, copy of medical literature Ex.OP-2/3, copy of test report Ex.OP-2/4. Opposite party No.3 has placed on record affidavit of Achin Aren. Opposite party No.4 has placed on record affidavit of Harbans Lal Sr.Divisional Manager Ex.OP-4/A, policy Ex.OP-4/1, Opposite party No.5 has placed on file affidavit of Som Raj AO Ex.OP-5/1.

23.     It is admitted fact that complainant No.2 had approached opposite party No.1 on 08.10.2019 for thyroid test and opposite party No.1 sent sample to opposite party no.2. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.2 had shown TSH result as 0.69. It is further admitted fact that on 12.08.2019 opposite party No.3 had shown result for TSH as 7.621. It is further admitted fact that on 19.08.2019 Chinna Clinical Lab. had given TSH result as 3.63. The only disputed issue is whether the complainants have suffered any harassment or complainants are entitled to compensation on account of difference in results.

24.     Perusal of file shows that opposite party No.2 had given TSH result as 0.69 on 10.08.2019 whereas the second report was given by opposite party No.3 with TSH result as 7.621 and third report issued by Chinna Clinical Lab. with TSH result shown as 3.63. it is seen  that although there is huge variations in all the three reports but we are of the view that as to how complainants have admitted the third report as correct and who has certified that the report given by Chinna Lab. with TSH result as 3.63 was correct report. We are further of the view that all the three reports were given on different date by all the three labs and complainants have nowhere pleaded that they had followed the guidelines before giving samples for the test. Moreover, it is the plea of the complainants that the doctor of complainant No.2 had admitted the third report as correct but perusal of file shows that there is only a prescription slip Ex.C7 issued by Dr.Ram Murti on 17.08.2019 and thereby no medicines has been mentioned by the said doctor which proves that complainant No.2 had never visited the said doctor again then how the said doctor can declare the report of Chinna Lab. as correct. Moreover, it is the plea of the complainant No.2 that Dr. Ram Murti had recommended third test but there is no such referral thyroid test prior to 17.08.2019 which shows that the thyroid tests were got conducted by complainant No.2 on 10.08.2019 and 12.08.2019 on her own without the recommendation of any doctor. We are of the view that it is not case of the complainant that all the three samples were collected within the proximity of 2-3 hours and sent three different labs and there were variations in the results of the labs. Since all the samples were given on different dates and it is nowhere proved under all the samples were given in same conditions. As such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, in the present case complainants have not shown that complainant No.2 had under gone any treatment on the basis of lab reports Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 or suffered any physical problem. As such we have no hesitation in holding that complainants have completely failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Moreover, complainants have further failed to bring on record any expert evidence in the shape of opinion of the board of doctors to prove this fact that third report was correct and earlier two reports were incorrect.

25.     Accordingly, complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.

26.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

27.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.                                                                                                                                                               

            (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                                      President.  

Announced:                                                   (B.S.Matharu)

Feb. 26, 2024                                                        Member.

*YP*