BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 675 of 2019.
Date of Institution : 21.11.2019
Date of Decision : 20.10.2023.
Rekha, aged 26 years wife of Shri Vijay Kumar, resident of Vill. Sahuwala-IInd, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa. ……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Global Imaging and Path Laboratory, Sirsa Branch inside the premises of Janta Maternity & General Hospital, Sirsa, Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa Distti. Sirsa.
2. Janta Maternity & General Hospital, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa run by Welfare Trust (Regd), Sirsa through its President/ Chairperson. Janta Bhawan Road, Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under the Provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amandeep Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte vide order dated 18.10.2023.
Sh. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs)
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant conceived the pregnancy and undergone follow up treatment from Dr. Shikha Goyal, Medical Surgeon, Gynaecologist under op no.2. That during the treatment, said doctor prescribed the blood testing of complainant vide prescription OPD dated 28.8.2019 and she strictly advised her for getting the blood testing from op no.1 having its centre inside the premises of op no.2 and staff of Dr. Shikha Goyal took her and her husband at the centre of op no.1 and disclosed about the blood testing as is prescribed by doctor. It is further averred that Dr. Shikha Goyal also prescribed the obstetrical ultra sound and specially referred the complainant at Om Diagnostic Centre, Dabwali Road, Sirsa and accordingly complainant got her blood sample tested from op no.1 on 28.08.2019 and after that she undergone the ultra sonography from Om Diagnostic Centre. In the ultra sound report it was reported as “Single live intrauterine embryo of 8 weeks 3 days +/-1 week”. That thereafter the complainant collected the blood test report from op no.1 wherein the op no.1 reported the blood group as O+negative. It is further averred that after perusing both the blood report as well as ultrasound report, concerned doctor started the diagnose/ treatment upon the complainant being pregnant woman. That after the report of blood group of complainant as O negative as is reported by op no.1, the concerned doctor Shikha Goyal prescribed the Anti-D injection to the complainant and stated that as the blood report is +negative, the complainant has to get injected Anti D injection to avoid developing antibodies in her blood stream (also known as agglutinins). It is further averred that concerned doctor has prescribed the medicines to the complainant with the open prescription that complainant must have to undergo Anti-D injection on account of reporting of her blood group as O+negative. That thereafter the complainant undergone the follow up treatment on the subsequent dates i.e. 28.08.2019, 28.09.2019 and 3.10.2019 and in all the subsequent prescription slips, the concerned doctor has diagnosed the complainant keeping in mind the blood report of the complainant as O+negative. That thereafter on 05.11.2019 the complainant again approached Dr. Shikha Goyal and complained that she is feeling uneasiness and feel vomiting when she takes anything and complainant also raised doubt about her blood group as O+negative and requested Dr. Shikha Goyal for clarification of the same. That on this said doctor prescribed the blood testing again on 5.11.2019 and as such complainant again approached the op no.1 and gave them blood sample. After taking blood sample, op no.1 asked to come again on 07.11.2019 and stated that report will be prepared on 07.11.2019. It is further averred that thereafter on 7.11.2019 complainant again undergone the blood testing from Dr. Verma Path Lab Sirsa and the said report of Dr. Verma Path Lab shown the blood group as O+positive. The complainant was shocked to know about the said report and also again confirmed about it from Dr. Verma Path Lab and she had also shown the report dated 28.8.2019 to said lab and stated to him about the report of her blood group as O+negative, upon which Dr. Verma again gone through/ perused the blood sample and confirmed her blood group as O+positive.
3. It is further averred that thereafter complainant alongwith report of Dr. Verma Path Lab dated 7.11.2019 approached to Dr. Shikha Goyal and shown her both the reports dated 7.11.2019. Upon this Dr. Shikha Goyal called the op no.1 and discussed with op no.1 in English language and thereafter the op no.1 after few minutes submitted the blood report of complainant mentioning therein as O+positive vide its report dated 7.11.2019 bearing Patient ID 15191150084. On coming to know of this negligence the ops no.1 and 2 in collusion with each other have made over writing over the endorsement of report as O+negative. It is further averred that due to wrong report of blood testing, the complainant and child in her womb were treated with treatment which was not required regarding Anti-D injection and due to wrong blood group report issued by op no.1, there was gross negligence on the part of op no.1. When the matter was reported to op no.2, op no.2 had not taken any action against op no.1 and both in collusion with each other and thus treatment given to the complainant had an adverse effect on her body and they have played with the lives of complainant and her unborn fetus. That as a direct and proximate result of actions and omission of ops, the complainant has suffered irreparable damages including physical pain and also have to undergo the follow up treatment unnecessarily which was not needed to her, hence complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for physical pain, mental agony, harassment, reimbursement of medical bills, present and future medical costs and emotional distress and is also entitled to litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
4. On notice, ops appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, no deficiency in service and that complainant has simply alleged that on account of the blood group reporting as O negative, the Anti-D injection has been administered upon the complainant but the fact remains that mere the alleged reporting as O negative is not the corresponding procedure for Anti-D injection as according to the ingredients for Anti-D injection as described by complainant if a woman has a negative blood group and she miscarries (or is threatening to miscarry with heavy bleeding during early pregnancy) she may require an injection of ‘anti-D immunoglobulin’ within 72 hours after the miscarriage (or within 72 hours after the bleeding has commenced for a threatened miscarriage). That in this case complainant fails to prove that she was having the threatening of miscarriage and that has been detected and reported by the attending doctor, hence there is no question of injecting the Anti-D injection upon the complainant. It is further submitted that complainant failed to establish the negligence on the part of op no.1 as the report as O negative was based on DU Cells in the blood group of complainant and the complication in the blood group of complainant is well within her knowledge and her husband but despite this the complainant just in order to blackmail the ops has filed this frivolous complaint. However, the prescription of Anti-D injection by the doctor depends on the study of pregnancy case by the attending doctor and do not relate to the replying op. It is further submitted that complainant has no cause of action and has suppressed the true and material facts and complaint is baseless and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, while reiterating pleas of preliminary objections and denying the contents of complaint to be wrong, it is submitted that complaint regarding the treatment of the patient by the attending doctor are not concerned to the replying op hence the same need no comments. It is also again submitted that blood group testing report of replying op depends on the DU Cells contains in the blood of the complainant which varies the result as per the enzymes therein the cells, hence the report dated 28.8.2019 is not outcome of any kind of negligence on the part of replying op. It is further submitted that facts regarding administering of Anti-D injection depends on the physical structure and body condition of the patient and not outcome of any negligence on the part of replying op. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
5. Op no.2 also filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts and that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as answering op has no concern or connection with the test report of laboratory i.e. op no.1 and it has been unnecessarily been impleaded as party and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further submitted that op no.2 hospital is run by Welfare Trust, Sirsa. The hospital is a Charitable and renowned hospital of the area which provides general and specialized treatments of ailments and other diseases at the very concessional/ nominal charges without any distinction to the entire people of the area including nearby area. The hospital is providing medical facilities in the area since last 40 years and has great reputation not only in the eyes of habitants of the area but also in the eyes of the fraternity of medical profession as well. That present complaint against op no.2 hospital is just a method to put pressure by misusing the process of law and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of op no.2, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits also, it is submitted that hospital is being run by the Trust without getting any profit rather the needy patients are being given more concession than the prescribed charges at their requests by the Trust. The charges of every types like OPD, hospitalization etc. are lowest of the area. In the same manner, the Trust is also aware to provide laboratory and radiologists tests at concessional rates much cheaper than the market. However, every patient who is prescribed to have laboratory and other tests is always free to get conducted those tests from any laboratory or diagnostic centre of his choice and hospital staff or any doctor of the hospital never ask/ suggest any patient to get conducted the tests from any specific laboratory etc. It is further submitted that it is wrong to narrate that Dr. Shikha Goyal or any member of staff of hospital advised the complainant to get the test checked from any laboratory or from op no.1. That as per record of the hospital, patient Rekha visited the op no.2 hospital on different dates viz. 29.06.2019, 08.07.2019, 28.08.2019, 28.09.2019, 03.10.2019 and 05.11.2019 for consulting/ checkup from Dr. Shikha Goyal, M.S. Gynae. However, except the visiting record of issuance of OPD slips on above mentioned dates, no other record of any type is available with op no.2. It is further submitted that complainant or her husband never approached the officials or Trustees of op no.2 hospital with any complaint against op no.1 regarding wrong testing/ reporting. The op no.1 is running a lab in the premises of op no.2 which was given by op no.2 only to provide lab testing facility within the hospital premises and that too on economical rates than the market. However, op no.2 has no control or interference with the testing or reporting procedure of such tests. Rest of the contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. In evidence complainant has also tendered her affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, husband of complainant namely Vijay has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW2/A and complainant has also tendered report of op no.1 dated 28.08.2019 Ex.C1, ultrasound report of Om Diagnostic Centre Ex.C2, prescription slips dated 28.09.2019, 03.10.2019, 28.08.2019 Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, report of Dr. Verma’s Path Lab Ex.C6, report of Global Path Lab Ex.C7 and receipt of the amount of Rs.100/- dated 28.08.2019 Ex.C8.
7. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Raj Kumar Kumar, Administrator as Ex. OP2/A and resolution dated 23.08.2019 Ex. OP2/1.
8. Op no.1 did not lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities including last opportunities and as such evidence of op no.1 was closed by order.
9. On 13.10.2023 when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and case was adjourned to 18.10.2023 for presence of op no.1 as well as arguments of op no.1 but on that date also none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
10. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and have gone through the case file carefully.
11. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of complainant argued that due to wrong report of blood group of complainant given by op no.1 and thereafter due to wrong treatment based on the said blood test report, the complainant has suffered a lot of harassment, physical pain and lives of both the complainant and child in her womb would have been in danger and has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for op no.2 while reiterating the contents of written version has argued that op no.2 has only provided space to op no.1 for running a laboratory and to provide lab testing facility within the hospital premises to the public that too on economical rates than the market but op no.2 has no control or interference with the testing or reporting procedure of such tests. The op no.1 is running its laboratory independently and is earning profit for himself and not for op no.2 hospital and there is no fault on the part of doctor of the op no.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
13. We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties i.e. complainant and op no.2. It is an admitted case of both the parties that complainant had taken her treatment of pregnancy and on the prescription of Dr. Shikha Goyal employed in the hospital of op no.2, her blood group was tested by op no.1 on 28.08.2019 and vide report Ex.C1 the op no.1 gave report of her blood group as O Negative. Thereafter, she was given medicines for treatment of Anti Bodies but when she felt abnormalities and uneasiness and vomiting she again approached Dr. Shikha Goyal and shown her dought about her blood group and again her blood group was tested by Dr. Verma Path Lab. As per report of Dr. Verma Path Lab placed on file by complainant as Ex.C6, her blood group was found as O Positive by that Laboratory which require no treatment of Anti bodies. It is also proved on record that again same laboratory i.e. Global Imaging and Path Labs i.e. op no.1 on 07.11.2019 had given report of blood group of complainant as O Positive again on the prescription of same Doctor Shikha Goyal and said report has also been placed on file by complainant as Ex.C7. The complainant was treated and given medicines of anti bodies and as such she felt uneasiness and complications due to said treatment given on the basis of wrong blood test report given by op no.1. However, during the course of arguments learned counsel for complainant conceded that complainant has avoided anti body injections and has not taken anti body injection due to paucity of funds and being poor persons and remained fortunate in this regard because administration of anti body would have been more dangerous to the lives of complainant and her unborn child but due to wrong report of blood test report wrong prescription has been issued by the doctor. It is proved on record that op no.1 had given first report of blood group of complainant as O Negative and thereafter complainant got tested her blood group from Dr. Verma Path Lab and said laboratory had given its report regarding blood group of complainant as O Positive and thereafter op no.1 corrected its mistake and reported that her blood group is O Positive and on the basis of first report of O Negative she had been prescribed medicines by the doctor on the basis of wrong report and has suffered complications of her health, so op no.1 is found negligent and deficient in service. The op no.2 is running a hospital though on charitable and on economical basis but the Doctor of op no.2 had given wrong prescriptions due to wrong report of op no.1 in the hospital of op no.2 which has also caused mental agony, physical pain and unnecessary harassment to the complainant. The op no.1 had been running his laboratory in the premises of op no.2 with the consent of op no.2 and doctor was also working under op no.2 being employee of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 is under vicarious liability for payment of compensation to the complainant. Moreover, op no.2 has permitted op no.1 to run the laboratory in its premises and no action has been taken against op no.1 by the op no.2 despite coming to know about wrong report given by op no.1 and op is still working in the premises of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 is equally responsible for the above said mistake and negligence. In our considered view the complainant is entitled to compensation of the amount of Rs.50,000/- and is also entitled to litigation expenses from both the ops. Since the doctor of op no.2 has prescribed medicines to the complainant on the basis of wrong report issued by op no.1, therefore, both the ops are jointly and severally liable for payment to the complainant.
14. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct both the ops to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 20.10.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
