DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2024
.
Filed on: 26/02/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 93/2020
COMPLAINANT
Sasikumari L., W/o. Babu E.S., Eettungalppady, Lakshmi Nivas, Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 683575
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY
Neuberg Anand, Reference Laboratories, C/o. Neethi Medical Lab, Kanjoor 683575.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On December 18, 2019, the complainant had a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) test conducted at the opposite party Medical Lab in Kanjoor. Upon receiving the results, the complainant believed them to be excessively high. Seeking a second opinion, she visited a nearby hospital where the doctor confirmed the results were indeed too high and recommended further testing elsewhere. Contacting the original testing facility for clarification, the complainant was met with indifference and poor treatment, with staff members dismissively suggesting a retest without acknowledging any error in the initial results. This situation caused the complainant significant stress, to the extent of affecting her ability to work. Subsequently, Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam underwent another blood test on 04-01-2020 at a different hospital, where results indicated normal levels. Attempts to address this discrepancy with the opposite party Medical Lab in Kanjoor were fruitless, receiving only vague promises of a callback. This ordeal subjected the complainant to considerable distress and humiliation, incurring unnecessary expenses. As a result, the complainant is seeking justice through the commission and requests compensation of 25,000 rupees for the hardships endured.
2) Notice
The notice to the opposite party was sent by the Commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not file a version, and as a result, they are set ex parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant submitted a proof affidavit along with three documents to the commission, marked as Exhibits A1 to A3, to substantiate her claim. These documents consist of:
- Exhibit A1: A copy of the report from the opposite party.
- Exhibit A2: A copy of the report from Nithi Medical Lab in Kanjoor.
- Exhibit A3: A copy of the report from Amrita Hospital in Ernakulam.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
On December 18, 2019, the complainant underwent a thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) test at the Medical Lab owned by the opposite party in Kanjoor. Following this, on January 4, 2020, a subsequent blood test was performed at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam, by a different medical institution, which revealed normal TSH levels. The complainant sought to rectify this discrepancy with the initial testing facility, the opposite party's Medical Lab in Kanjoor, but to no avail. The crux of the complaint centers around the disparity in test results obtained within a span of approximately 16 days. It is conceded that the first test was conducted with the opposite party on December 18, 2019, and the second test, yielding different results, was administered at Amrita Hospital, Ernakulam, on January 4, 2020. The interval of 16 days between these tests is significant and suggests that variations in test results could occur within such a period.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “
Upon careful examination of the evidence presented and the legal framework under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Commission observes the following:
- The core of the complaint rests upon the discrepancy in TSH test results within a span of 16 days, raising concerns over the accuracy and reliability of the initial test conducted by the Opposite Party.
- The Commission notes the well-established legal principle that the burden of proving deficiency in service or negligence rests upon the complainant, as reiterated in SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), where it was held that without concrete proof of deficiency, the accused party cannot be held liable.
- The variance in TSH levels within a short span, as presented by the complainant, does not conclusively establish a deficiency in service without further medical evidence indicating an error in the first test. TSH levels can fluctuate due to various factors, including but not limited to, changes in medication, diet, or health condition.
- The complainant’s allegations of poor treatment and indifference by the staff, while concerning, do not directly correlate to the accuracy of the test results provided by the Opposite Party.
- The failure of the Opposite Party to respond to the notice does not automatically substantiate the complainant’s claims in the absence of definitive evidence of negligence or deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 2nd day of April, 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A1: A copy of the report from the opposite party.
Exhibit A2: A copy of the report from Nithi Medical Lab in Kanjoor.
Exhibit A3: A copy of the report from Amrita Hospital in Ernakulam
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 93/2020
Order Date: 02/04/2024
