Haryana

StateCommission

A/958/2023

S.R. DIAGNOSTIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIKKI - Opp.Party(s)

VARUN SUMAN

11 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.958 of 2023

                   Date of Institution:22.08.2023

          Date of Decision:11.07.2024

 

S.R.Diagnostic, Laboratory & ECG, Near Bharti Cinema & Chiranjiv Hospital, Haily Mandi, Pataudi (Gurugram) through proprietor Mahender Kumar.

…Appellant

Versus

 

Vikki S/o Rajesh Kumar, R/o Nehru Garh (6-N), Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari-123303, Haryana.

…Respondent

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Shri  Gopal Sharma, counsel for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          Opposite Party-Appellant-S.R.Diagnostic, has filed the instant appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for challenging the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari whereby the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent-Vikki was allowed with direction to the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony, trauma and harassment. Direction was also issued to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant. The said payments were to be made along with interest @ 9% per annum within 30 days from the date of filing of this complaint on 01.10.2020,  failing which the said amounts, to be payable by the OP to complainant with interest @ 12% per annum with annual rests, from the date of filing of this complaint till payment. 

2.      According to the complainant, OP is a Diagnostic Laboratory and ECG Centre situated near Bharti Cinema & Chiranjiv Hospital, Haily Mandi, Pataudi (Gurugram) and providing clinical diagnostic tests and other medical examination across the district. The complainant was employed as a Driver in the city of Gurugram. He got married to Smt.Deepa on December 14, 2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs.  Complainant’s wife was under treatment at Kavita Hospital and Maternity Home, Pataudi Road, Hally Mandi,Gurugram, where Dr.Kavita referred the wife of the complainant for several medical tests.  In addition to this, she suggested the complainant to get the blood and HIV tests done.  On 11.11.2019, complainant submitted his sample to OP, for which he received a report on the same day stating him to be positive with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (hereinafter referred as HIV). The complainant was shocked and depressed to the core on receiving the fateful news of him being positive with HIV. On 11.11.2019, on confrontation with the wife of the complainant about the dire straits, the complainant’s wife deserted him  and went back to her paternal home.  Complainant had to face serious discomforts in his marital relationship and he was looked upon with hatred and disgust by his in-laws. The false report as provided by the OP ruined the marital life of complainant to the extent that wife of the complainant demanded divorce from him. The complainant became a subject of skepticism in his friends, relatives and other members of the society.  He was portrayed as a man of poor character and he was distanced from all social gatherings and meetings. The complainant being pushed in a state of depression left his house and returned back after a period of more than six months. Due to the above said reason, he was fired from his job and was forced to do labour work.  Upon the suggestions  received from well-wishers of complainant, he went for re-tests, hence he took an appointment from Dr.Kanchan Yadav, who referred him to get the tests done at Dr.Gajendra Yadav’s Pathology Laboratory. In the fresh reports dated 12.05.2020 received from Dr.Gajendra Yadav’s Pathology Laboratory, complainant was termed to be HIV negative. Complainant of his own re-assurances got his test done for one more time at General Hospital on July 29, 2020, where again medical reports of the complainant affirmed his HIV Negative Status. The report issued by OP was a responsible act and could not be done in a casual or cavalier manner.   The referred inexcusable act of the OP cost the complainant valuable time of life in prime, his friends and other social relationships.  The complainant has come under severe mental stress because  of  unsolicited, unprofessional act on part of the OP to the extent that his marital life was ruined and he developed suicidal tendencies.  A legal notice dated 07.09.2020 was served upon OP by the complainant through his counsel, demanding the compensation from the OP, which was duly served but OP  responded to the said reply by taking a strange stance that complainant had forged the report on the official stationery of the OP, contending that stationary had been stolen from the premises of  the OP.     With above said allegations, the complainant prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of physical and mental trauma.  As the aforementioned act of the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, the complainant filed the instant complaint.

3.      On the other hand, the opposite party pleaded that   the answering OP is not ECG Centre as alleged. The OP is a diagnostic Laboratory.  The answering OP had no knowledge regarding the marriage of complainant. It is submitted that answering OP have no concern with Sanjay Kumar. OP never conducted any blood test of complainant.  It was further submitted that  document produced by the complainant showed that there was Dr.Rajender Rustagi MBBS was printed on the report and on the other side senior technician S.R. Lab was written but there was no signatures and stamp of the proprietor of S.R.Diagnostic. It shows that these documents were falsely prepared by the complainant to extort money from the OP.  As per record of the OP, no sample was taken of the complainant by the OP, then question of wrong report did not arise. The complainant has not suffered any loss mentally, physically and monetary as alleged. OP further pleaded that some documents had been stolen by someone and in this regard, complaint was submitted to police by OP. The OP duly replied the legal notice dated 07.09.2020.  As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and, accordingly, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the material available on the record, learned District Consumer Commission came to the conclusion that complainant’s complaint was liable to be allowed.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that no sample was taken of the complainant on the alleged dated i.e. 11.11.2019 and it has been specifically mentioned that OP never conducted any blood test of the complainant and story is false and manipulated. Further argued that  in the entire complaint, the complainant nowhere mentioned that he paid any money consideration amount for getting the test done and also not produced any payment/receipt of the appellant.  Accordingly prayer has been made for accepting the appeal and for setting aside the impugned order.         

6.      It is true that as per Ex. C-1, the result of HIV test is positive and as per Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3, the result of HIV tests is negative.  It is also true that as per Ex.C-1, Dr.Kavita Agg. referred the complainant to S.R.Diagnostic.  The plea of appellant that it never conducted any blood test of the complainant, is denied.  The appellant did not produce any evidence on record about whether Dr.Rajender Rustagi MBBS was employed with it.     As per test report of S.R.Diagnostic Ex.C-1, the life of the complainant was totally unbalanced.   The appellant should have prepared right report of the HIV test.  The plea of the appellant that complainant has not paid consideration for tests, is also denied as in modern days, tests were conducted by doctor and then sent to lab and patient paid the consideration of tests to the doctor in advance.  Since, the complainant has suffered heavy losses, mentally physically and monetarily due to the unprofessional, unqualified act on the part of the OP.  The learned District Consumer Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stand dismissed.

7. Statutory amount of Rs.1,26,000/- was deposited by appellant at the time of filing of this appeal. This amount is now ordered to be refunded to complainant-respondent against proper receipt, identification and verification as per rules and registry of this Commission is accordingly directed.

8.  

9.      A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

10.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

11th  July, 2024                  Manjula                  S.P.Sood                    T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member            President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)