National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Chandigarh Clinical Laboratory vs Jagjeet Kaur on 30 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ157(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.
2. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Mrs. Jagjeet Kaur was taken to the petitioner laboratory for getting her blood-group checked up and the report was given of her having blood group AB+. The blood-group report was required as she had been advised blood-transfusion, for which she was transferred to GGS Medical College and Hospital, where again blood sample was collected and it gave a report of the complainant's blood belonging to AB(-). It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging 'medical-negligence' who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, directed the petitioner to allow the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 along with cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, which was dismissed, hence this revision petition before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The basic facts are not in dispute but it is plea of the petitioner that firstly, the clinical tests are not always 100% correct and secondly, no loss was caused to the complainant due to the error in the report given by the petitioner. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner one has to only understand what duty of care the doctor/pathologist owes to the patient. This question has been gone into by this Commission and several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and House of Lords. Relevant rule of "Halsbury's Laws of England - Vol. 26 (3rd Edition) Pages 17-18" reads as under:
22. Negligence: duties owed to the patient. A person who holds himself oat as ready to give medical (a) advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, whether he is a registered medical practitioner or not, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give: and a ditty of care in his administration of that treatment (b). A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient (c).
4. We have no doubt that the petitioner is a qualified pathologist but the 'duty of care', required in such case to give a correct finding, which was not given in this case, is a clear instance of medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.
5. The negligence stands proven in this case by the admitted fact that the petitioner gave the report of blood group of the complainant belonging to AB+ whereas in fact it was AB(-) which has not been disputed by the petitioner. Whether harm came to the patient or not would not be a criteria. It is the failure on the part of the petitioner to take due care to return a correct finding, that is at the heart of issue and in which the petitioner completely failed.
6. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. The revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed.
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission stands paid to the complainant.