State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Sneha Diagnostics, Rep. By Its ... vs Nalamalapu Krishna Reddy, ... on 6 September, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.904/2011 against CC.No.185/2009 District Consumer Forum, Prakasam District at Ongole. Between: M/s.Sneha Diagnostics, Rep. by its Manager/Managing Partner, D.No.5-28, Opp. To Ratnam Diamond Towers, Kurnool Road, Ongole 523002. Appellant/O.P.No.1. And 1.Nalamalapu Krishna Reddy, S/o.N.Brahmanda Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Hindu, Employee R/o.5-1-37, 9th Cross Road, Rajapanagal Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. R.1/Complainant. 2.M/s.Amma Hospital, Rep. by Dr.Zakir Hussain, Lambadi Donka, Ongole 523002. R.2/O.P.No.2. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.T.Sreedhar. Counsel for the Respondents R.1 and R.2 served. None appeared. QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) *******
1. This is an appeal preferred by the 1st opposite party against the order of the District Forum, Prakasam District, directing it to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that his son Pramod Reddy when he was suffering from fever was taken to O.P.2 hospital for medical check up and treatment on 11.09.2009, where O.P.2 Dr.Zakir Hussain checked up and prescribed some medicines. Later, on 15.09.2009 when the patient was brought for further check up, Dr.Zakir Hussain referred him to O.P.1 for clinical examination who in turn collected the samples and gave a report and O.P.2 on seeing it opined that the condition of the patient was serious and therefore, directed him to be taken to Sri Ramachandra Childrens and Dental Hospital, Guntur. It disclosed that every thing was normal However, Dr.T.C.S.Reddy sent the patient for clinical examination in order to ensure the veracity of the report of O.P.No.1. On seeing the report, Dr.T.C.S.Reddy declared that the report of O.P.No.1 was false. There was great variation in WBC count. When the said fact was informed to O.P.2 hospital, Dr.Zakir Hussain advised O.P.No.1 not to repeat issuance of such false reports.
Thereupon, he got issued a legal notice claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, for which no reply was given.
He, therefore, filed the complaint claiming Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and costs.
3. O.P.No.1, the appellant, resisted the case. While denying the various allegations made in the complaint, it alleged that when the boy was brought for blood test, he got it tested with ABX Pentra 60 C+ HORIBA ABX diagnostic machine wherein it showed the correct reading. Accordingly, the report was submitted. In fact the test conducted at Sri Ramachandra Diagnostics at Guntur, was not authenticated.
No mention was made as to the test or instrument that was applied for conducting the said test. It is very common that the count of White Blood Cells (WBC) may raise or fall in quick succession in the existing status of infection and its variation depends on various factors including resistance power and medication effect. At any rate, the count of 2000 cells/cumm cannot be fatal for any patient either to survive or collapse. There was no deficiency in service, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. O.P.No.2, the doctor, equally filed counter. He admitted that Pramod Reddy, the son of the complainant was brought to him while he was suffering from fever on 11.09.12009 for medical check up and treatment.
Again on 15.09.2009 he was brought for further check up. He referred him for clinical examination to O.P.No.1. The report given by it shows abnormality in TWBC count. Basing on the report, he referred the patient to Sri Ramachandra Childrens Hospital, Guntur. There was no negligence on his part, and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7, while the opposite parties did not file either affidavit evidence or documents.
6. The District Forum basing on the evidence placed on record opined that though O.P.No.1 used sophisticated equipment, but the test conducted by O.P.1 shows that there was variation with the test conducted in another laboratory at Guntur. Therefore, it presumed that there was negligence on the part of O.P.No.1 and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/-.
7. Aggrieved by the said order, O.P.No.1 preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that it is recognized as an ISO 9001 2000 Certified Diagnostic Centre. It had used sophisticated scientific equipment namely, ABX Pentra 60 C+ HORIBA ABX where a correct reading was given. Sri Ramachandra Diagnostic Centre, where second test was conducted, did not mention as to the exact instrument with which it was tested or the staff who gave the report. In fact their report is incorrect. Therefore, it prayed that the appeal be allowed by dismissing the complaint.
8. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciate of facts or law in this regard?
9. It is an undisputed fact that Pramod Reddy, the son of the complainant, when he was suffering from fever went to O.P.No.2 hospital represented by Dr.Zakir Hussain, who referred him to the appellant Diagnostics Centre for blood test. Ex.A.2 Haematology report shows that the boy was having White Blood Cells (WBC) count of 2000 Cells/cumm, while the reference range was 4,000 11,000 Cells/cumm. The Platelet count was 1.80 Lakhs/cumm, while the reference range was 1.5 4.5 Lakhs/cumm. There is a categorical mention as to the instrument that was used for the above said test namely, ABX Pentra 60 C+ - HORIBA ABX DIAGNOSTICS. O.P.No.2, the doctor, having found that the range had fallen short referred him to another diagnostic centre, Sri Ramachandra Children and Dental Hospital, Guntur, where blood test was conducted, vide Ex.A.5.
10. It was mentioned that WBC count was 9.200 Cells/cumm. While giving the said report, he did not mention as to the instrument with which such a test was conducted. Simply because Sri Ram Chandra Diagnostics mentioned WBC count as 9,200 Cells/Cumm, it cannot be presumed that the report issued by O.P.No.1 was incorrect.
11. Unless it was tested by another laboratory, it cannot be said that either of the reports is correct. One of the reports might be correct. Equally both reports might be also true.
12. The evidence of the appellant that the count of White Blood Cells is likely to vary within a short time was not disputed, nor the said fact was put to O.P.2. O.P.No.2 did not allege anywhere that the test conducted at O.P.No.1 is incorrect. Since the W.B.C. count was less than 2000 cells/cumm, he referred the patient to another centre, obviously in order to confirm. However, when there was a deviation when it was tested with Sri Ramachandra Diagnostic Centre, he did not refer the patient to third diagnostic centre.
It cannot be assumed that the report, Ex.A.5 is correct simply because the WBC count mentioned therein falls into reference range. The complainant was silent as to what exactly happened, nor O.P.No.2 expatiated as to the treatment given by him to the patient. It is not known whether he relied Ex.A.2 or Ex.A.5 report. Unless confirmation is made in order to find out whose report is correct, it cannot be said that the report given by O.P.No.1 is incorrect. The complainant ought to have got the boy examined by another diagnostic centre, in such a case it could be found whether the W.B.C. count falls into reference range.
13. Be that as it may. The complainant could not prove that the report under Ex.A.2 is incorrect, nor O.P.2 his own doctor did say so. Therefore, the District Forum went wrong in finding fault with the diagnostic report issued by O.P.No.1. We do not agree with the opinion expressed by the District Forum in this regard. The complainant was unable to establish that O.P.No.1 was guilty of giving wrong diagnostic report.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
__________________________ PRESIDENT __________________________ MEMBER __________________________ MEMBER 06/09/2012.
vvr