DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT

Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Wednesday the 26^th day of July 2023

C.C.439/2014

Complainant

Anu

D/o.Chandradasan,

Chithrampatt (H), Thrippanachi (P.O),

Pulpetta Village, Ernad Taluk,

Malappuram  - 673 641.

(By Adv.Alinihas.V)

Opposite Party

        Proprietor/MD

        Mediserv Clinical Laborataries,

         27/97C7, F.C.C. Building,

        Near Federal Bank Tower,

       Mavoor Road,

       Kozhikode – 673 016.

      (By Adv.Sri.Sreekanth.S .Nair and Sri.Rajeesh Chandran)

ORDER

By Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN– MEMBER

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

The complainant who was pregnant was consulting Dr.Sabitha Nithyanandan of Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode.  In the 4^th routine checkup, the doctor advised some lab test and scanning.  Along with her husband, she approached the opposite party at 10.00 A.M on 21/08/2014.  Blood and urine samples were collected by the opposite party and bill amount was paid by the complainant.  The test results were made available after 3 hours and with the result she consulted her doctor. The doctor told that reading of GCT and TSH was above than normal.  She was advised food control as the sugar level was very high.  She was also referred to endochrinologist to start further management.

3. On hearing this, she had mental tension. On discussing the matter with her husband it was decided to do the tests from a different lab.  Another lab Aswini Diagnosis Services was contacted and they told that GCT test could be done on next day only and blood sample was collected to do TSH test.  The result showed normal level of TSH.

4. There was doubt, in the test conducted by the opposite party and to ensure accuracy, another lab under Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode “Advanced clinical and research Laboratory” was contacted and did the GCT and TSH test. There also the result obtained showed the normal level in GCT and TSH.  From the above facts she came to know that there is no authenticity for the result of the opposite party’s lab test. She approached the opposite party for getting compensation and explaining the failure to do the test in proper way.  There was no a positive reply from them.  As the lab test was conducted by the opposite party without the technical knowhow and facilities, she had to suffer much.  There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  If treatments were followed as per the results of the lab test, it might have been injurious and harmful to herself and the baby in the womb. 

5. The complainant has approached this Commission stating that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for a direction to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- to her for the financial loss and mental agony suffered.  Also, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is demanded as both of them had to take leave in the days of testing and they had to spend additional amount as travelling expenses.

6. The opposite party filed the version.  Almost all the averments in the complaint were denied by them.  According to opposite party the complainant had not produced the consultation slip of Dr.Sabitha Nithyanandan.  No prescription details were also produced.  It is true that the complainant approached them for doing the tests without any prescription and sample was collected.  When the result was shown to the doctor there was no direction from her to repeat the test and medical advice was given based on the test conducted by the opposite party.  It shows the doctor is convinced with the result. 

7. The test repetition was done by the complainant based on her choice and without any direction from the consulting doctor.  In the Aswini Lab, only TSH was done and GCT was not done.  There is possibility of difference in results, if there is change in methods and instruments.   The complainant has not understood the testing procedure properly and without knowing the test formalities, the opposite party is simply blamed.  The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint as it is filed for getting undue benefit and with a view to tarnish the good image of the opposite party. 

8. The points that arise for determination in this case are:

1.  Whether there was any deficiency of service from the opposite party, as alleged?
2.  It so the Reliefs and costs.

9. Evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant.  No evidence was let in by the opposite party.

10. Neither the complainant nor the opposite party was present for hearing inspite of granting ample opportunity.

11. Point No.1 :  The complainant is seeking compensation from the opposite party for her unwanted sufferings, mental tension and expenses due to the alleged wrong lab report.  In order to substantiate her case, the complainant produced 8 documents Ext A1 to A8.  PW1 has filed proof affidavit and disposed in terms of the averments in the complaint.

12. The main issue raised by the complainant is about the two tests, Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH) and Glucose Challenge Test (GCT).  Ext A1 is the test report of opposite party.  Ext A4 is the test report of another lab Aswini Diagnostic Services.  Ext A6 is the test report of Advanced Clinical and Research Laboratory.  Ext A1 shows the TSH value of 5.48 uIU/ml.  TSH value in Ext A4 is 2.594 mIU/L.  The normal Range Value of TSH shown in Ext A4 is 0.35 to 5.5 and Ext A6 is 0.34 to 5.60.  The value of GCT in Ext A1 is 144mg/dl.  The repetition of GCT Test was done in only one lab. 

13. It is well settled that in a consumer complaint, the onus to prove the deficiency in service is on the complainant.  This has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SGS India Vs Dolphin International Ltd LL 2021 SC 544.  At the very outset, it may be noted that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the test is done in opposite party lab by any inexperienced or unqualified staff.  Nothing is produced by the complainant to prove that any inexperienced or unqualified technicians were employed by opposite party in the lab to conduct the test. The complainant has no case that the opposite party is not a well equipped lab.  No evidence is produced by the complainant that opposite party is not conducting the test with the aid of modern equipments.  Equally there is no evidence that the equipments in the lab are not well maintained or that they are inaccurate.

14. Also, the National Accreditation Board for Laboratories (NABL) insists on proper calibration methods of lab instruments at periodical intervals.  Calibration is the foundation of clinical laboratory testing that ensures the accurate reporting of patient’s results.  In order to ensure the exact correct results proper adjusting the instruments as needed to meet standard should be done as per the standard specification.  In this case 3 labs are involved and neither the complainant nor the opposite party has produced any calibration report done for any of the laboratory instruments as per the standard specification. One cannot say which result is showing the exact value.

15. To sum up, this Commission is of the view that there is no proof of any negligence or latches on the part of opposite party in this case as alleged and consequently she is not entitled to claim any compensation from the opposite party. 

16. Point No.2 :  In view of the findings on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to the relief sought for, and complaint is only to be dismissed.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.However, no order as to costs.

Pronounced in Open Commission on this the 26^th day of July 2023.

Date of Filing: 01-09-2014.

                     Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Test report of opposite party.

Ext.A2 – Bill No.4940 dated 21/8/2014 issued by the opposite party.

Ext.A3 – Bill of another lab Aswini Diagnostic Services.

Ext A4 -Test report of another lab Aswini Diagnostic Services.

Ext A5 - Bill of another lab Advanced Clinical and Research Laboratory.

Ext A6 -Test report of Advanced Clinical and Research Laboratory.

Ext A7 – Scanning report issued by the opposite party.

Ext A8 –Discharge summary issued to the complainant from Baby Memorial Hospital.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1 -Anu (Complainant) .

Witnesses for the opposite parties:

Nil

                               Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-

                        PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER

              True copy,

                                                                                                                            Assistant Registrar