State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yash(Minor) vs Dr.Ajit Singh on 24 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA First Appeal No.227 of 2016 Date of Institution: 16.03.2016 Date of Decision: 24.05.2017 Yash minor S/o Late Sh.Parmod Kumar S/o Lachman Singh R/o village Dulhera,Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, through his real uncle Ompal. .....Appellant Versus Dr.Ajit Singh, (GAMS) near Adrash Diagnostic Centre Silani Gate, Jhajjar,District Jhajjar. Dr.Jagbir (BMLT) Chairman Adrash Group of Institution, Adrash Diagnostic Centre Silani Gate, Jhajjar, District Jhajjar. .....Respondents CORAM: Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
Present:- Mr.Parmod Parmar, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr.Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Initially complaint was filed by Parmod Kumar(since deceased) and after his death complainant pursued the same as his son (hereinafter complainant will be reference to Parmod Kumar). It was alleged by complainant that on 08.09.2013 he visited the clinic of O.P.No.1 and he referred him to O.P.No.2 for HIV test. After examination he was shown negative to HIV. As per his report O.P.No.1 started treatment prescribed for tuberculosis patient. When there was no relief he went to PGIMS Rohtak on 22.08.2013 and after test he was declared a case of HIV positive and Tuberculosis. On that very day he again approached O.P.No.2, but, after conducting test he cleared him from HIV positive. He approached Doctor Lal Path Labs, Delhi and they confirmed the report of PGIMS Rohtak. In this way he was mentally as well as physically harassed by the O.Ps. and be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10/- lacs besides compensation qua mental harassment, litigation expenses etc.
2. As O.P.No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, so only O.P.No.2 filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that he conducted HIV I II single Assay Cards Tests None Reactive for only screening. For further confirmation of this problem ELISA or PCR were required. For definitive diagnosis, clinical history of patient symptomatology and serological findings were to be co-related. Card tests could give false positive or false negative re-action in certain situations. A patient could not be labeled to be sero positive only on the basis of card test alone. So there was no lapse on his part.
3. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short "District Forum") allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 14.12.2015 and directed as under:-
"We direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and losses to Yash, the son of complainant on account of wrong treatment given to his father Parmod Kumar. The complainant Yash is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses for the present unwanted and unwarranted litigation only due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly."
4. Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of compensation.
5. Arguments heard. File perused.
6. As per facts mentioned above, it is clear that complainant was having HIV positive, but, O.P.No.2 did not declare the same. If more tests were required then O.P.No.2 should have advised him accordingly. In Ex.P-8 O.P.No.2 clearly declared that he was not having HIV. It is no where mentioned therein that which type of test was conducted by him. When HIV was suspected O.P.No.2 should have conducted or suggested further test to determine the same. It is clear laxity on his part. However O.P.No.1 cannot be blamed because he gave treatment on the basis of ultrasound report Ex.P-5 and report of O.P.No.2. Had he been declared patient of HIV and O.P.No.1 had given treatment for tuberculosis then it could have been a case of negligence on his part. So he cannot be held liable to pay any compensation.
7. Due to wrong diagnosis by O.P.No.2, complainant went from one place to other and must have spent huge amount. Even if details of expenditure are not mentioned it could be safely presumed that one has to spend substantive amount for tests and going from one place to another. He also suffered mental trauma during this period. This is a fit case where amount of compensation should be increased. As a sequel to above discussion it is opined that respondent NO.1/O.P.No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. O.P.No.2-respondent NO.2 is held liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.75000/- for mental harassment etc and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 09% from the date of filing of complaint till realization. Impugned order dated 14.12.2015 is modified accordingly and appeal is disposed of.
May 24th, 2017 Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench S.K.