BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 08th March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.498/2014
(Admitted on 17.12.2014)
Mr. V. Ramachandran Menon,
Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
Indian Oil Bhavan,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Kulur Ferry Road, Kottara,
Manglaore 575 006.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri UPM)
VERSUS
1. The City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre,
Represented by its Managing Director,
Situated at Kadri, Pound Garden,
Mangalore 575 003.
2. The Lab Incharge,
The City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre,
Situated at Kadri, Pound Garden,
Mangalore 575 003.
…..........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: Sri PJR)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant claims he had given his blood sample to the laboratory of opposite party No.1 on 20.7.2014 at 9.10 am for fasting blood sugar and HbA1C as per the reports was shown as 100 mg/dl and HbA1C as 8.6% due to high value of HbA1C. Complainant approached his physician who suggested to retest and got it done at KMC Laboratory Services and the results were HBA1C level is only 7.1% contrary to the report of opposite parties. He claims any doctor with a pathology degree easily can identify that FBS of 100 mg/dl and HbA1C of 8.6 are not in the least compatible results. Complainant sought by means of a letter for return of testing fee of Rs.420/ and 5,000/ as damages from opposite party with copy addressed to the Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore. Reply was received through the Karnataka Medical Council with copy of the reminder of the opposite party alleging that the technician of opposite party was an unaware what can be seen as a great anomaly in results of FBS and HbA1C and report was released without the signature of a qualified pathologist. The complainant Claimed he is a consumer and opposite parties as service provider and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties seeks the relief mentioned in the complaint.
II. Opposite party filed written version. Opposite party No.1 City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre is managed by M/s Bhasker Shetty & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and it is known as City Hospital. The laboratory of which is the part of City Hospital is an ISO certified the allegation are made against opposite parties are not admitted. The complainant got his HbA1C test done at opposite party laboratory at 9.10 am is a self -requisition and at the time of giving the report sought to in two other laboratories tested and to consult his treating doctor. But the complainant appears to have not tested his blood in two other laboratories on the same day without much loss of time. The instrument used for analysis of blood sample of HbA1C called Nyco Card Reader was regularly checked by company engineer and certified on 06.07.2014, 10.07.2014 and 16.01.2015 different days. The allegation that opposite party did not question the results of HbA1C is irrelevant as the alleged sample was not sent to KMC through City Hospital Research 7 Diagnostic Centre. Opposite parties is not admitting the result of KMC Laboratory services as correct. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. V Ramachandra Menon filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C11 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Dr. K Bhasker Shetty (RW1) Managing Director of The City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R16 as detailed in the annexure here below.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case filed on record including evidence tendered by parties and notes arguments of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): The complainant got his blood sample tested with opposite party for fasting blood sugar and HbA1C on 20.7.2014 at 9.10 am and got result in 45 minutes is undisputed. The complainant claims as his HbA1C level was abnormal and was not compatible with FBS level after consulting his physician got tested at KMC. Later on the other hand opposite party claims at the time of delivery of the report complainant was asked to get the blood samples verified at two other labs on the same day but that was not done by complainant. However complainant claims 3 days later he got his blood samples for HbA1C verified at KMC and the result was in vary with what was given by opposite party the correctness of this report is disputed by opposite party. Hence there is live dispute between the consumer the complainant and opposite party the service provider as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): As seen from the rival contentions the complainant did not get his blood samples verified for HbA1C very on the date he gave blood samples for analysis with opposite party, the blood samples was given with opposite party at 20.7.2014. Even according to complainant he received the report on the same day within 45 minutes of collection of blood samples by opposite party. Opposite party claims complainant was requested to get the blood samples get verified at two other laboratory on the same day but that was obviously not got done by the complainant.
2. The complainant claims then he met his physician and got the blood sample again tested at KMC and verified on 24.7.2014. Strangely the complainant does not make mention the name of the physician with whom he consulted after report Ex.C2 of his blood analysis by opposite party. Ex.C3 is the report of the KMC laboratory services dated 23.07.2014 and it is signed by one Dr. Anupama Hegde. Ex.C2 is dated 20.7.14 and date of receipt of time mention as 9.10 am and the description for FBS Glyco Hb% blood analysis of complainant does not contain any signature of the physician contrary to the allegation of complainant. In fact this slip does not contain even a date. Ex.C3 the report shows the Glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C) of complainant as 7.1 at Ex.C2 the HbA1C is shown as 8.6.
3. The learned counsel for opposite party pointed out that even in the complaint and even in evidence the complainant did not disclose the name of the physician with whom he consulted for 2nd blood test. It was pointed out in the notes of arguments that opposite party admitted that the Ex.C2 is not signed by a technician who had not medical qualification or expert to do the same. Even opposite party in answer to interrogatories No.1, 6 and 23 admitted this fact.
4. The learned counsel for complainant produced copy of the specific criteria for accredited medical laboratories issued by NABL. In this at Sl. No. 5 Technical requirement 5.1.1.4 mentions the following ‘the authorized signatories shall demonstrate knowledge and competence in the concerned speciality’. 5.1.1.4 mentions about the qualification norms of the technical staff.
5. The opposite parties has produced that the same it is accredited to NABL.
6. That implements on regularly calibration and instrument Nyco Card Reader was regularly checked by company engineer and certified on 06.01.2014, 10.07.2014 and 16.1.15 and calibration was done on 02.8.2014. It was pointed out for defense opposite party even at the Ex.C3 is signed by only consultant biochemist and not a doctor or pathologist and that a technician is also authorised to sign the report at Ex.C2. As seen from specified certificate for a accreditations of medical laboratories above in respect of clinical pathology Histopathology, Cytopathology, Clinical Pathology, Haematology, Clinical Biochemistry, Nuclear Medicine, routine Microbiology and Serology Sl. No. A at table 1 of 5.1.1.2 as to the qualification norms for authorized signatories is mentioned. Neither in at the Ex.C2 nor at Ex.C3 are the education qualifications of the signatory technician is found. As such as rightly pointed out for complainant we are of the view that the claim made by complainant that the report filed by the opposite party cannot be relied upon as in respect of Microbiology and Serology, Clinical Pathology, routine clinical Biochemistry, routine Haematology a person must be an M.Sc., Microbiology with 5 years experience or M.Sc. in Microbiology with 7 years experience in Medical laboratory. In the case on hand it is technician who signed at Ex.C2. His qualification is not mentioned by opposite party. Hence there is deficiency in service on enunciated in LAWS (NCD).2007.8.14 of Jagjeet Kaur v/s B.K. Taimni, Member case.
7. Even though there is delay of 3 days in collecting the second blood sample for analyse and the complainant did not disclose the name of the physician with whom he said have consulted for the second blood test in view of the report Ex.C2 being not signed by a qualified person. We are of the opinion at that the complainant has proved difficulty in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
8. As to qualification while ordering refund of Rs.420/- with interest at 9% per annum to complainant from the date of complaint till the date of payment. Opposite party shall be directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation to complainant.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with cost. Opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.420/ (Rupees Four hundred Twenty only) with
interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant from the date of complaint till the day of payment.
2. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/ (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation to complainant.
3. The above amounts shall be paid within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 8th March 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore. Additional Bench, Mangalore.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. V Ramachandra Menon
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre Bill No.0000252150 dated 20.07.201
Ex.C2: City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre Lab Report No.64578
Ex.C3: KMC Hospital Lab report No.142935/Sample No.240 Dated 23.07.2014
Ex.C4: Letter dated 24.07.2014 to the Medical Superintendent, City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, Mangalore with a copy marked to the Karnataka Medical Council
Ex.C5: Postal Acknowledgement dated 26.07.2014 from the Medical Superintendent, City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, Mangalore
Ex.C6: Letter dated 01.10.2014 to the Medical Superintendent, City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre, Mangalore with a
Copy marked to the Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore
Ex.C7: Postal Acknowledgement dated 14.10.2014 from the Medical Superintendent, City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre,
Mangalore and 07.10.2014 from the Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore
Ex.C8: Letter from Karnataka Medical Council, Bangalore reference No. KMC/2Exp/Doct/2014 dated 11.10.2014
Ex.C9: Copy of the letter dated 11.08.2014 given by City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre to Karnataka Medical Council
Ex.C10: Full guidelines of NABL
Ex.C11: An abstract of the case hearing by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Dr. K Bhasker Shetty, Managing Director of The City Hospital Research & Diagnostic Centre
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: ISO Certificate No.BS EN ISO 9001-2008 (2 sheet)
Ex.R2: Certificate of participation of City Hospital Laboratory in CMC External Quality Assurance Scheme, Vellore
Ex.R3: 6.1.2014 Calibration certificate for the Nyco Card Reader from Rapid Diagnostic Group of Companies
Ex.R4: 10.7.2014 Calibration certificate for the Nyco Card Reader from Rapid Diagnostic Group of Companies
Ex.R5: 28.07.2014 Calibration certificate for the Nyco Card Reader from Rapid Diagnostic Group of Companies
Ex.R6: 02.8.2014 in Field Calibration Report of Nyco Card Reader
Ex.R7: 05.08.2014 Calibration certificate for the Nyco Card Reader from Rapid Diagnostic Group of Companies
Ex.R8: 16.1.2015 Calibration certificate for the Nyco Card Reader from Rapid Diagnostic Group of Companies
Ex.R9: Notarised true copy of the Biochemistry the Test Report from KMC
Ex.R10: Notarised true copy of the Biochemistry the Test Report from KMC
Ex.R11: Xerox copy of the conditions of report of Metropolis Healthcare Ltd. (NABL accredited laboratory)
Ex.R12: 20.03.2015 Original Information letter under RTI Act from IOC Ltd
Ex.R13: 10.01.2014 Extract of outgoing letters under RTI Act (enclosure)
Ex.R14: 25.07.2014 Extract of outgoing letters under RTI Act (enclosure)
Ex.R15: 25.7.2014 Original postal cover addressed to OP
Ex.R16: 01.10.2014 Original postal cover addressed to OP
Dated: 08.3.2017 PRESIDENT
