CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 57 / 2008

G. Siva Prasad Reddy, S/o Eswar Reddy, Hindu,
aged about 25 years, Cultivation,
resident of Talapanur Village, V.N. Palli Mandal,
Kadapa district. ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1) Proddatur Rainbow diagnostic and Medical Centre,
D.No. 4/623, Opposite to ING Vysya Bank,
Gandhi Road, Proddatur.
2) M. Madan Mohan, Lab Technician, aged not known,
Father’s name not known, Swamy Clinical & Bio Chemical
Laboratory, D.No. 14/2, Opposite to Anwar Theatre,
Mydukur Road, Proddatur Town, Kadapa District.
3) Dr. V. Sudhakar, M.S. General, Swarna Hospital,
Gandhi Road, Proddatur. ….. Opposite parties.


This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 4-3-2009 in the presence of Sri G. Chowdu Reddy & G. Trivikram Singh, Advocates for complainant and Sri S. Krishna Reddy, Advocate, for R1 and Sri N. Sudhakara Babu, Advocate for R2 and Sri G. Sai Vamsee Krishna, Advocate for R3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R


(Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),

1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was suffering from fever and admitted as in patient in the hospital of 3rd opposite party and he was referred to 2nd opposite party for blood examination. The 2nd opposite party secured the blood sample from the complainant on 9-2-2007 and referred to 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party gave a report that the platelet count was 36,000 / Cumm. On that report the 3rd opposite party advised the complainant to go for expert treatment either at Kurnool or Hyderabad. The complainant went to Kurnool General Hospital, Kurnool, but he was not admitted. So the complainant went to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where the report was issued that the platelet count was 1.5 L/Cumm and others were normal. The complainant spent huge amount and suffered mental agony because the opposite parties did not perform their duties properly.

3. The complainant got issued a notice dt. 22-2-2007 and 01-5-2007 to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/- with future interest and costs. It was served and replies with false allegations was sent by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complaint was filed for Rs. 1,20,000/- along with future interest and costs from the opposite parties.

4. The 1st opposite party filed a counter denying the complaint averments. The opposite party did not know the ailment of the complainant and his admission in the hospital of 3rd opposite party and blood samples sent to 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party received the blood sample on 9-2-2007 from Swamy Laboratory, Proddatur at different timings. It was not known whether the same was that of the complainant. There was no any name or particulars on the sample bottle. On the label it was marked as Swamy Lab–1, Swamy lab-2 only. The test would be conducted and sent back the report to the concerned. It was not correct that one of the samples tested was 36,000 / Cumm. The other three samples tested revealed 15,000/Cumm, 1,40,000/Cumm and 2,30,000/Cumm on the same day and the report was sent to 2nd opposite party. It was not known whether it was connected to the complainant or some other persons. Four separate reports were sent to Swamy lab Sl. Nos. 10, 18, 26 and 29 in the detailed list of the reports sent on 9-2-2007 by the 1st opposite party were noted as that of the report sent to Swamy Lab, Proddatur. It was not correct that the report given by the 1st opposite party was not correct and on account of it the complainant proceeded to Hyderabad. On 9-2-2007about 38 blood samples were tested and reports were sent and there was no complaint about correctness of the opposite party. The report of the blood sample could vary not only from day to day but also by hour to hour depending on the conditions of the patient. The complainant was tested on 10-2-2007 at Hyderabad whereas the report given by the 1st opposite party was on 9-2-2007. There was likelihood of change. It was not correct that the complainant spent huge amount because the 1st opposite party had not given correct report. The 1st opposite party was not liable and there was no responsibility for the expenses incurred by the complainant. The opposite party send the reply notice dt. 8-5-2007 with true and real facts. There was no cause of action and hence, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

5. The 2nd opposite party filed a counter denying the complaint averments. The opposite party collected the blood sample of the complainant on the evening of 9-2-2007 and conducted hemoglobin test and serum bilirubin and found they were normal. With regard to the platelet count the 1st opposite party had a latest diagnostic medical center with modern laboratory giving accurate result. Therefore, the blood samples was sent to the 1st opposite party, who gave a report that the platelet count was 36,000/Cumm. The time for testing of platelet count in the laboratory of 1st opposite party was less than five minutes. The 2nd opposite party received four samples from four different persons at different times on that day and the complainant was 4th and last person of the test on that day. The reports of other three persons were given by the time the complainant came for blood testing. After receiving the report the opposite party noted the name of the complainant on the report itself and gave it to the complainant. So there was no negligence on the part of the opposite party in conducting the tests. The platelet count would differ depending on the treatment given to the patient. The treatment given to the complainant was not known to the opposite party. The opposite party was a qualified Technician working for the past 15 years and was doing the platelet count manually. As the 1st opposite party had latest and computerized equipment, the blood sample of the complainant was sent to the opposite party No. 1. No hospital or authority had given a finding that the report of the 2nd opposite party was not correct. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6. The 3rd opposite party filed a counter denying that the complainant was not admitted as in patient in the hospital of 3rd opposite party on 8-2-2007. The complainant came to the hospital first time at 6.00 p.m on 9-2-2007. In the out - patient register of the hospital, the complainant was shown as the 2nd patient on the evening of 9-2-2007. He came to the hospital with fever and severe pain in the abdomen since 4 days and hence, he was directed to get test reports. After administering paracitamol, the 2nd opposite party took the blood sample and the complainant went to the lab of the 1st opposite party for ultrasound abdominal and pelvis test. The complainant brought blood report and also ultrasound report on 9-2-2007 around 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. The serology report revealed that the patient had infection of dengue fever because the blood was weak reactive for IGG antibodies. The Hematology report revealed the platelet count was 36,000/Cumm. The reference range for platelet count was 1.4 lakhs to 4.4 lakhs / cumm. The ultrasound report revealed a mild enlargement of liver and spleen. The clinical reports revealed dengue fever or other viral fever. There were number of patients with similar complaints at that time in Proddutur. The blood transfusion need to be conducted for low count of platelet. In Kadapa district there was no such facility. Thus the complainant was advised to go to Hyderabad or Kurnool for further management. The complainant first went to Kurnool on 10-2-2007. The out patient card disclosed that the complainant was referred to Duty Assistant Physician by the duty doctor. It was not correct that the complainant was not admitted in Kurnool General Hospital. The complainant himself got admitted in Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad on 10-2-2007 and was discharged on 12-2-2007. He was diagnosed for febrile thrombocytopenia i.e. fever with low platelet count. The entire case sheet issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad was not filed. The laboratory reports were suggesting a case of dengue fever. On account of dengue and other viral fevers, the platelet production in the blood would be affected. When the count of platelet would fall below 1,00,000/Cumm, immediate medical attention would be given to the patient. The patient would be recovered if an expert treatment would be given. He recovered after three days at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The question of medical negligence would arise only in case the opposite party would treat the complainant. After the visit of the complainant for fever and getting the reports the complainant was advised to get expert treatment at Hyderabad or Kurnool. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. There was no proof of huge expenditure. There was no negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party and thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i.Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii.Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
iii.To what relief?

8. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex. B1 was marked. No witnesses were examined.

9. Point No. 1 & 2 The complainant was examined as PW1. The PW1 i.e. the complainant went to hospital of the 3rd opposite party for fever and was admitted for treatment as inpatient. The 3rd opposite party advised the complainant to get the blood test for proper treatment. The complainant was referred to 2nd opposite party for blood test and the 2nd opposite party secured the blood sample on 9-2-2007 and referred to 1st opposite party. In the cause title of the complaint the name of the clinical laboratory of 2nd opposite party and the name of the hospital of 3rd opposite party was not mentioned, except their names in individual capacity. So the complainant was in doubt whether the 2nd opposite party and 3rd opposite party were liable individually or their institutions were liable. Similarly with regard to the 1st opposite party it was not mentioned in the cause title by whom the 1st opposite party was represented i.e. whether the Manager or Proprietor or a trust. The 2nd opposite party issued the Haematology, Bio-Chemistry, Serology report under Ex. A1 on 9-2-2007 itself, in which the platelet count was 36,000/Cumm under Haematology report. The reference range was 1.4 lakh/cumm – 4.4 lakh/cumm. The 1st opposite party gave the Haematology report on the reference of 3rd opposite party. So the Hamatology report of the 1st opposite party was noted by 2nd opposite party under Ex. A1. Ex. A2 was Haemotology report issued by 1st opposite party.

10. After receiving the Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 the 3rd opposite party i.e. Dr. V. Sudhakar did not touch the complainant in view of less platelet count i.e. 36,000/cumm and advised the complainant to prefer expert treatment either at Kurnool or at Hyderabad. The 3rd opposite party conducted Ultrasound abdomen and pelvis of the complainant. The case was with regard to the blood sample and not with regard to the abdomen and pelvis. The complainant i.e PW1 went to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 10-2-2007 where he was diagnosed for febrile thrombocytopenia i.e. fever with low platelet count. The PW1 was discharged from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 12-2-2007. He was given blood transfusion and was discharged. Ex. A3 was the discharge report issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad was a Govt. Hospital and no fee was collected because the complainant had not filed any bills or receipts for collecting the fees by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. In its absence the treatment given by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad was on free of cost. The PW1 did not file any Haemotology report from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad did not conduct any type of blood test but gave the treatment on the basis of blood reports Ex. A1 and Ex. A2. In case of blood test was conducted after taking blood samples from PW1 on 10-2-2007 to 12-2-2007, the blood report should be given to the PW1. In stead of it in Ex. A3 the platelet count was shown as 1.5lakh/cumm.

11. Subsequently the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 2 & 3 on 22-2-2007 demanding a compensation of Rs. 1,20,000/-. The office copy of the notice was Ex. A4. The PW1 got issued a notice dt. 01-5-2007 to 1st opposite party demanding to pay Rs. 1,20,000/-. The Office copy of the notice was Ex. A5. Ex. A6, Ex. A7, Ex. A8 were reply notices from opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 respectively denying the allegations leveled by the complainant against them. Ex. A9 was out patient slip issued by the Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool, dt. 10-2-2007.

12. On the other hand the 1st opposite party filed a list of reports sent on 9-2-2007 to various persons including the samples sent by 2nd opposite party. The Xerox copy of the list was Ex. B1 in which Sl. Nos. 10,18,26,29 were the samples received from 2nd opposite party in the same Ex. B1 under Sl. No. 29 the platelet count was shown as 36,000/cumm without the name of the patient that is PW1. The platelet count under Sl.No. 10, 18, 26 in Ex. B1 were 15000, 1,40000 and 2,33000 respectively without patient’s name. The PW1 admitted in his evidence that he was recovered completely after transfusion of blood and so he was discharged from Osmania General Hospital on 12-2-2007. On verifying the documents filed by the PW1 the 3rd opposite party had not given any type of treatment but simply referred to the Govt. General Hospital, Kurnool or at Hyderabad. Therefore, there was no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the 3rd opposite party i.e. Dr. V. Sudhakar. The opposite parties 1 & 2 had no knowledge that the blood sample belonged to PW1. The clinical laboratory people need not bother whether the blood sample belonged to a particular person or some other person. In Ex. B1 the 1st opposite party had received the blood sample from the 2nd opposite party but did not mention the name of patient including PW1. So they conducted the blood test and sent the report of PW1 to 3rd opposite party. Thus there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 also. Since there was no negligence particularly on the part of doctor i.e. 3rd opposite party, he was unnecessarily impleaded as a party. It is only a chance petition against opposite parties 1 to 3. The PW1 failed to file any bills for his claim of Rs. 1,20,000/- and did not file any calculation in arriving such figure. There was no proof. Thus there are no merits in the complaint and is liable to be dismissed

13. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.