Order No. 11 dt. 26/03/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant for the purpose of health check up went to o.p. being a hospital and paid Rs.999/- for health check up and USG charges of Rs.3,900/- on 23/02/2018. The complainant’s blood was tested by o.p. and report was collected on 24/02/2018. On seeing the report complainant found that the creatinine level was mentioned 4.3 and complainant became astonished. He went to another doctor and as per his advice he went for further blood test at Trivedi and Roy Co. but the report received from the said laboratory it was mentioned that the creatinine level is 1.13 instead of 4.3. On the basis of the said fact the complainant stated that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.870/- towards charges for the blood test and also he had to bear other expenses for his consultation with the doctor. In view of such discrepancy in the test report the complainant became mentally perturbed, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to pay the cost of Rs.3,219/- and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that based on the complaint by the complainant to the o.p. hospital the matter was immediately escalated to the Hospital Public Grievance Cell. The Hospital Management immediately called for a meeting on 07/03/2018 in presence of the complainant Pathology-in-Charge Mr. Rabindra Kar. Manna and Public Grievance Officer Mr. Aditya Bikram Sikder took decision with the consultation of the management to pay back the charges incurred together with the cost of all further tests and also doctor consultation fee as sought by the complainant. It may be pointed out that the error which resulted though surfaced later was from an error of placing the vial in the wrong slot in the centrifuge and was accidental on the part of a technician which led to the error. On complain from the complainant, it was redone with the residue sample and the mistake was unearthed. In fact a conveyance charge of Rs.250/- as well as the USG charge which was not controverted or challenged was also agreed to being refunded cumulating to a sum total of Rs.4,619/- but the complainant in order to have the financial gain have falsely made allegation against the o.p. and made claim of Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. prayed for necessary order and the o.p. is ready to comply the order.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant went for the medical test to the o.p. hospital?
- Was there any mentioning of the creatinine level wrong in the report?
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant for the purpose of health check up went to o.p. being a hospital and paid Rs.999/- for health check up and USG charges of Rs.3,900/- on 23/02/2018. The complainant’s blood was tested by o.p. and report was collected on 24/02/2018. On seeing the report complainant found that the creatinine level was mentioned 4.3 and complainant became astonished. He went to another doctor and as per his advice he went for further blood test at Trivedi and Roy Co. but the report received from the said laboratory it was mentioned that the creatinine level is 1.13 instead of 4.3. On the basis of the said fact the complainant stated that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.870/- towards charges for the blood test and also he had to bear other expenses for his consultation with the doctor. In view of such discrepancy in the test report the complainant became mentally perturbed, for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to pay the cost of Rs.3,219/- and also prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that based on the complaint by the complainant to the o.p. hospital the matter was immediately escalated to the Hospital Public Grievance Cell. The Hospital Management immediately called for a meeting on 07/03/2018 in presence of the complainant Pathology-in-Charge Mr. Rabindra Kar. Manna and Public Grievance Officer Mr. Aditya Bikram Sikder took decision with the consultation of the management to pay back the charges incurred together with the cost of all further tests and also doctor consultation fee as sought by the complainant. It may be pointed out that the error which resulted though surfaced later was from an error of placing the vial in the wrong slot in the centrifuge and was accidental on the part of a technician which led to the error. On complain from the complainant, it was redone with the residue sample and the mistake was unearthed. In fact a conveyance charge of Rs.250/- as well as the USG charge which was not controverted or challenged was also agreed to being refunded cumulating to a sum total of Rs.4,619/- but the complainant in order to have the financial gain have falsely made allegation against the o.p. and made claim of Rs.50,000/-. On the basis of the said fact the o.p. prayed for necessary order and the o.p. is ready to comply the order.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant complainant for availing of the health check up went to o.p. hospital and paid the necessary charges. After taking the blood test of the complainant report was provided to the complainant. On perusal of the report found that the creatinine level was mentioned 4.3. The complainant thereafter rushed to another doctor who advised complainant for having blood test from another competent laboratory, accordingly, the complainant went to Tribedi and Roy Co. and blood test was made. After the said test the complainant came to know that the creatinine level was 1.3 instead of 4.3. From the materials on record it appears that there report received by the complainant on 24/03/2018 and immediately after receiving the report on the next date he rushed to a doctor and as per the advice of doctor he went for further test at Tribedi and Roy co. on 26/02/2018 i.e. for two days he has suffered mental agony after receiving the report he got mental relief. Whenever it is found from the materials on record that the complainant with bringing to the notice of the o.p. regarding such report of showing creatinine level high a meeting was called and the o.p. agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,619/- including doctor’s fee, USG charges, laboratory test at Tribedi and Roy Co. and also the amount paid by the complainant to the said o.p. hospital. In spite of such offer made by the o.p. complainant filed this case. The o.p. also explained that due to their mistake committed by the technician the said error took place. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant immediately after seeing the such report for which became mentally perturbed for which he consulted another doctor and as per the doctor’s advice he went for a days and his anxiety was removed i.e. the complainant suffered mental agony for two days. It appears from the materials on record that since the complainant suffered mental agony for which he should be compensated by paying compensation to be paid by the o.p. Accordingly, we hold that the complainant will be entitled to get the relief including compensation and litigation cost. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
That the case no.166 of 2018 is allowed cost with cost. The o.p. is directed to pay Rs.4,619/- (Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred and Nineteen) only and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
