Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party with his grievance that himself and his wife on 15.12.2006 underwent a blood test at Opposite party for detecting the cholesterol range, wherein the Opposite party gave the report of cholesterol value of the Complainant as 257, Triglycerides 471, then VLDL cholesterol 94.20 as against in normal range of 125 – 200, 25-200, 5 – 40. Since, the measured value of cholesterol was above normal range, he decided to undergo treatment. He underwent treatment at Amrutha Ayurvedalaya, Mysore for reducing cholesterol. To check the range of cholesterol after treatment he again on 21.05.2007 underwent blood test with the Opposite party wherein the Opposite party gave the test value as 240, 446, 89.20 as against the normal range stated above since the above values were very much above the reference range, he on advise of his doctor, underwent further test at Bio-chem Diagnostic Lab, Mysore on 26.05.2007 where the cholesterol level was shown as 209, 180.6 and 36.12. The result was lower then the result given by the Opposite party. As he was still not certain he on 27.05.2007 got his blood tested at Ananda Diagnostic Laboratory, Bangalore where the result is given as cholesterol 215 then Triglycerides as 153. These reports confirmed that his cholesterol level was at borderline high. But the result given by the Opposite party shown otherwise as the result, the report of the Opposite party caused needless shock and mental anxiety to him and undergone expensive treatment subsequently and therefore contending that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in his service, has prayed for awarding damages of Rs.25,000/- for mental shock and to direct to pay Rs.2,200/- for test conducted by the Opposite party with cost of test conducted at other labs and other expenses. <br /> 2. The Opposite party has entered appears through an advocate and filed version contenting that he is only running collection centre of providing pathology services. That he is not doing any pathology test and he is sending the blood specimen for testing the same to M/s Thyrocare Technologies Ltd., having its office at Navy Mumbai. It is further contended that the allegations of the Complainant are all false that the Complainant has not made the necessary parties, admitting that the Complainant availed service during September 2006 and he had collected blood sample, has stated that the cholesterol value of the blood sample of the Complainant is higher than the normal level on all occasions wherever the samples have been tested. 10 – 15 % variation from lab to lab is a known fact due to external variables like inter machine, inter day, inter technology, inter brand variations etc. But unless cholesterol level rises above 300 mg% treatment is not advocated and there was no need to undergo medical treatment for cholesterol value reported in the ranges of 240-257 mg %. American Heart Association recommended dietary restrictions and mild to moderate exercise (life style changes) to start with any cholesterol management plan. Further contending that the Thyrocare Technology Ltd., is fully automated Bio-Chemistry analyzer with modern equipment is highly accredited, therefore denying the allegations of the Complainant has prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the Complaint allegations, the Complainant and the Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence. The Complainant has produced the test reports of Opposite party and other two laboratories referred to above. Heard the Complainant who is in person, counsel for the Opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the cholesterol blood test reports given by the Opposite party are inaccurate which has resulted in mental shock to him and therefore the act of the Opposite party has resulted in deficiency in its service?<br /> 2. To what relief the Complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The Complaint is presented by the Complainant alone against the Opposite party. But in the body of the Complaint he has referred to the blood test underwent by his wife also and regarding inaccuracy in that report and taken up the grievance of his wife without making her as party and without any authorization. As the wife of the Complainant is not a party to the Complaint, the mere reference made by the Complainant in the body of the Complaint cannot be construed, this Complaint is also filed on behalf of the wife of the Complainant and taken up for adjudication. As such the Complaint is confined to the Complainant alone. <br /> 7. The claim of the Complainant that he underwent cholesterol blood test with the Opposite party during September 2006 on two occasions is admitted by the Opposite party in para 3 of his version and also in the affidavit evidence. The Opposite party has also not denied the cholesterol value referred by the Complainant as indicated in the report of the Opposite party given on 15.12.2006 and 25.01.2007. The Opposite party has also not disputed the normal range he has referred to in these two reports. On comparison of the cholesterol range of the results shown by the Opposite party and the normal range as indicated by the Opposite party, the result is far more higher than the normal range. The Complainant has also referred to two more tests, he has underwent at Bio-Chem Diagnostic Laboratory, Mysore on 26.05.2007 and one more test at Ananda Diagnostic Laboratory, Bangalore on 28.05.2007. The result of Bio-Chem Laboratory reveals that the cholesterol value of the Complainant was 209.0 mg as against normal range of 200, Triglycerides was shown as 180.6 as against 170, ELDL cholesterol as 36.12 as against 5-35 the normal range. These results given by the Bio-Chem Lab, show little more then the normal range, but far below than the result given by this Opposite party. Then coming to the report given by the 3rd lab namely Ananda Diagnostic Lab, cholesterol level is shown as 215 and Triglycerides as 153, which is of course again is little on higher side than the normal range, but that range is far below than the result given by the Opposite party. It is the above test reports given by the Opposite party stated to had caused mental shock to the Complainant and was forced to undergo treatment and spent money for arresting the cholesterol level and also for further test.<br /> 8. The Opposite party as could be seen from the version and affidavit evidence he has filed, has not either disputed or controverted the correctness or accuracy of the test reports of Bio-chem Diagnostic Lab and Anand Diagnostic Lab. What the Opposite party has contended is as if 10-15% variations from lab to lab is a known fact due to external variables like inter machine, inter day, inter technology and inter brand variations. No doubt, as indicated by the Opposite party there may be little variation in the test reports from one lab to other lab and also some times depending upon the gap in between the first test to subsequent test. But, it is evident from the result of the Opposite party and other 2 labs, the variation is not between 10-15%, but the variation is more than 10-15% as it is evident from those reports. The complainant as could be seen from the complaint allegations, that after the first test with the Opposite party he underwent treatment and when he got the blood tested for 2nd time on 21.05.2007 in about 5-6 days, the test report of the Opposite party shown the cholesterol range much above the normal range. If those test reports are compared to the test reports of other 2 laboratories, the test report of the Opposite party found to be more erroneous and difference is more than 10-15%.<br /> 9. The Opposite party further contended that unless cholesterol level rise above 300 mg%, treatment is not advocated and there is no need to undergo medical treatment. But, as per the reports given by the Opposite party himself, the reference range of cholesterol is shown as 200, triglycerides also 200 and VLDL cholesterol between 5-40. That being so the contention of the Opposite party that if the cholesterol level do not rise above 300 mg% treatment is not advocated cannot be heard. As the test results given by the Opposite party, being far higher than the normal range shown in the reports, the complainant or any other person in his place would have suffered a shock and anxiety. However, accredition that the Opposite party has acquired it do not mitigate the deficiency caused by it in giving such inaccurate test reports. Might be that the Opposite party lab is equipped with highly sophisticated machines, but when those machines do not indicate the accurate reports and when the Opposite party endorses such inaccurate test reports he would be causing inadequacy and deficiency in the service, for which he is liable. The Opposite party has contended that he only collects sample and sent to the institution at Bombay for test and at Bombay institution is not made as a party, therefore he is not liable to the complainant. As referred to above, the Opposite party has conceded to had collected sample blood of the complainant got them tested issued the reports. He is also not disputing that he is either acting as an agent of Bombay institution or branch of Bombay institution. It is, this Opposite party, got the blood tested and issued reports. Therefore, the Opposite party cannot escape the liability and in the absence of Bombay institution, the complaint in our view is maintainable. Therefore, we find no merits in this objection. Therefore, considering the case of the complainant from all angle it could be conveniently held that the Opposite party has not rebutted the case of the complainant. In the type of this case report of any expert is not warranted because the 2nd and 3rd reports of different laboratories, since have gone unquestioned by the Opposite party are themselves prove the inaccuracy of the report of the Opposite party and therefore we hold that the complainant has proved point no.1 and we answer it in the affirmative and pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The Opposite party is directed to pay damages of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which the Opposite party shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The Opposite party shall also pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />