Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/3/2012

BINU MANIYANCHIRA SCARIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MARWA MEDICARE AND DIGNOSTIC CENTRE, THE DIRECTOR - Opp.Party(s)

S. DHIRAVIYA RAJ

20 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

C.C. No.3 of 2012

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:  12.05.2022

 

Binu Maniyanchira Scaria,

Son of Scaria

Maniyanchira, Chuzhali,

Kannur,

Kerala.                  … Complainant

 

vs.

 

1.The Director,

Marwa Medicare and Diagnostic Centre,

Plot No.62, Door No.1,

Bharathi Nagar,

4^th Street, T.Nagar,

Chennai-17.

 

2.Jerry Varghese Consultants,

No.313, Dalmal Tower,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai-21.

And at

No.23, Lady Madhavan Street,

Mahalingpuram, Nungambakkam

Chennai-34.

 

3. The Director,

Scans World,

Rama Street,

Opp. To Independence Day Park,

Valluvarkottam High Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai-34.         … Opposite Parties

 

 

             For Complainant              :  M/s.S.Dhiraviya Raj

             Opposite Parties, set ex parte.

 

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 28.04.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             Alleging issuance of wrong medical report by OPs-1 and 3  that led to unjust rejection of his candidature by the 2^nd OP/Consultant for the abroad job opportunity, the complainant has come up with this present case, seeking this Commission to direct the OPs to pay him Rs.75 Lakh towards compensation for mental agony, loss of reputation, etc. and to withdraw the false chest x-ray and inform the same to Zayeed Military Hospital at Abudhabi  so as to ensure that the complainant gets back the overseas job opportunity, besides costs of the litigation.

 

             2. In brief, the case of the complainant, as projected in the complaint filed by her, is as follows:-

             The complainamt, a graduate in Lab Technology (B.Sc. - MLT) and pursuing post graduation in Medical Laboratory Technology, has a professional experience of more than 10 years and, with an aspiration to taken up suitable assignment in the Middle East, he responded to an advertisement appeared in a Local Daily at the instance of the 2^nd OP/Consultancy for the post of Lab Technician in Zayed Military Hospital at Abudhabi.  He called upon by the 2^nd OP to attend the interview conducted at Taj Hotel, Chennai, on 17.04.2011.   After scrutiny of documents, he was informed that his candidature for the position of Lab Technician was successful and he would be paid salary of about 14,000 Riyal which is equivalent to Rs.2 lakh per month. He was also informed that, for the final selection, he should clear the medical examination to be held at the 1^st OP/Centre.  Having been selected provisionally and the only remaining formality being the medical clearance, he was referred by the 2^nd OP to the 1^st OP for the medical examination scheduled at 10.30 AM. on 18.04.2011.  After undergoing the medical test, the 2^nd OP informed him that he was not fit for selection for the reason that the x-ray report reveled chest fibrosis.  Sensing that the said report was a motivated theory to eliminate the complainant and to favour some other candidate, the complaint requested to furnish the x-ray report but in vain.  Since the complainant never had such ailment and he vehemently protested upon the medical report, in order to convince him, the 1^st OP referred him to the 3^rd OP/Scan Centre, where, the report taken had revealed minimal fibrosis in the bilateral lower lower lobes.   Even though the report of the 3^rd OP revealed that there was no evidence of active infection, the 1^st OP conspired and collluded with the other OPs to prepare false/forged medical report as if fibrosis spotted in the chest, thereby, the candidature of the complainant was rejected. In such circumstances, the complainant personally underwent tests at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai, on 20.04.2011, and later consulted panel of doctors at Kasturba Medical College at Mangalore with the CT-Scan of the 3^rd OP and they ruled out any kind of abnormality including fibrosis.  Because of the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant lost the lucrative career prospects, thereby, he not only suffered mental agony and paid but also loss of reputation, hence, the complaint seeking for the relief as mentioned above.

 

             3. In the written version filed by OP Nos.1 and 2, among other things, it is stated as follows:-

             It is true that the complainant had appeared for the interview, but, undergoing medical examination is not a formality as stated by him, but, it is an essential aspect of employment in any service and much more in foreign service. After being referred to the 1^st OP/Autorized Medical Centere that has a well equipped lab, he was examined by experts and the fiborosis disclosed in the x-ray was noted in the report and, under the norms and regulations prescribed, persons with fibrosis are disqualified from entering into gulf countries. The complainant, who was not satisfied with the x-ray report disclosing fibrosis, was referred for a second expert opinion and the allegation that only to favour some other candidate, the complainant was eliminated is a blatant self-serving lie. There are ample job opportunities and anyone who could pass the test would be cleared and the question of eliminating the candidature is out of question, since there was no dearth of vacancy.  The second test done at the 3^rd OP/Scan Centre also odisclosed fibrosis and it confirmed the medical test conducted by the 1^st OP, hence, it is mischevous to allege conspiracy against the OPs.   The allegation of unfair trade practice is highly defamatory and malicious and hence, they sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

4. Although written version has been filed by OP Nos.1 and 2, they did not come forward to contest the matter further by filing any proof affidavit and hence, they are set ex parte. On the side of the complainant, to substantiate his  case, proof affidavit has been filed and 8 documents have been marked as Exs.A1 to A8.

 

5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainat.

 

6.  The main point of the argument by the learned counsel for the complainant is that, since he was all along hale and healthy, by suspecting the medical report of the 1^st OP to the effect that he had chest fibrosis and also that of the 3^rd OP stating that there was a minimal fibrosis, he took personal test at his expenses in the Apollo Hospitals at Chennai and the report of the said Hospital indicated “NORMAL STUDY” which means that he was not suffering from any fibrosis; thereby, it could be well inferred that, only in order to accommodate somebody else in the place of the complainant, the OPs colluded together to eliminate the candidature of the complainant by citing the wrong medical reports issued by the 1^st and 3^rd OPs.  Learned  counsel would add that, by producing the x-ray result issued by the Apollo Hospitals under Ex.A4 and also another report under Ex.A5, which categorically state that the complainant is normal without any fibrosis,  the complainant has amply demonstrated his case against the OPs and, by considering the same, the relief sought for may have to be  granted by this Commission, he pleaded.

 

7.  But, we are unable to endorse the above submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, for more than a couple of reasons.  Firstly, the reports under Exs.A4 and A5 are independent in nature and they are not supported by any solid medical opinion that was drawn after due comparison between the medical reports issued by the OPs and that of the other private Hospitals where the complainant is said to have privately underwent the tests.  In other words, the complainant failed to adduce any corroborative piece of material to precisely pinpoint that the reports under Exs.A4 and A5 procured by him at his own instance render the medical reports issued by the OPs false and wrong.  Secondly, the complainant has failed to prima facie establish that there was collusion among the OPs in order to deceive him.  Only if he succeeds in proving the said segment averred specifically throughout the complaint, there would be a valid scope to consider the aspect of relief sought for by him. Thirdly, the level of evidence adduced by the complainant is not sufficient enough to tilt the scales in his favour.   Finally, it must be pointed out that, in a case of this nature, where the medical reports are highly disputed and theories of collusion and conspiracy are alleged, with the scanty details/materials made available in the form of averments in the complaint, denial thereof in the version and limited piece of exhibits,  this Commission cannot arrive at any definite conclusion.  Only before the civil court concerned, the parties can well very canvass the disputed claims and points, by filing the entire documentary evidence available and also by letting in oral evidence by way of affording the opportunity of cross-examination to the other side, thereby, proper adjudication can be done in a real sense.  Thus, inasmuch the case of the complainant cannot be gone into by this Commission for the reasons aforementioned, we are not inclined to entertain the complaint.

 

8. Complaint is dismissed for the reasons given hereinabove. No costs.

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

Ex.A1       07.04.2011   Interview Call Letter issued by 2^nd OP.

Ex.A2       18.04.2011   Token issued by 1^st OP.

Ex.A3       19.04.2011   Multi scan result of the complainant issued by the 3^rd OP.

Ex.A4       20.04.2011   Chest x-ray result issued by Apollo Hospitals, Chennai

Ex.A5       15.04.2011   Chest x-ray issued by Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, Kerala

Ex.A6       03.08.2011   Report of HRCT Chest issued by Scans Plus, Mangalore.

Ex.A7       06.06.2011   Legal Notice issued on behalf of the complainant

Ex.A8       01.07.20011 Reply Notice issued by the OPs.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

9008.  

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT