State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thyrocare Technologies Ltd vs Ainin Saleh Basmeh on 2 May, 2024
1 A/1066/2019
Date of filing :21.05.2019
Date of order :02.05.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 1066 OF 2019
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 376 OF 2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION : AURANGABAD.
Thyrocare Technologies Ltd,. Appellant
D-37/3, TTC MIDC, Turbhe, (Adv.P.C.Mayure)
Through it's Manager.
VERSUS
Ainia Saleh Basmeh, Respondent
R/o Behind Central Bus Stand, (Adv.S.M.Mane)
Garam Pani, Rashid Mamu colony,
Bolck No.3, Aurangabad.
CORAM: Dr.Nisha.A.Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
Nagesh C.Kumber, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 02/05/2024) Per Dr.Nisha Amol Chavhan, Hon'ble Member.
The Appellant has challenges in this appeal, Order and Judgment passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Latur dated 07.03.2019 in CC. No. 376/2018.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under.
2 A/1066/2019
3. Appellant are the Diagnostice Company and carrying on their business of conducting various clinical/laboratory tests of human blood samples through India. Respondent was one of the customers who availed service from the appellant.
4. Appellant is submitted that, he received the blood specimen of the respondent under barcodes 10133632(serum) H4039980 (urine), H4039974 (fluoride). H9277245 ( EDTA) on 3/5/2018 for PALEO M profile through their authorized service provider and the same was processed through the automated system/auto analyzer which reads the unique bar code on the vials and performed the required test parameter and results thereof was released vide report dated 4/5/2018.
5. Appellant further submitted that, it may be seen from the above report that the values indicated thereof were only the results of the tests performed on the blood specimen of the respondent through automated mechanical process and further it may also be seen that the clinical significance mentioned therein was of general nature and suggesting further diagnostic measures which may be required as per the Doctor's advice and it nowhere authoritatively declares that the respondent is suffering from any disease though the test results indicated abnormal value of the test parameter asked on the blood 3 A/1066/2019 specimen of the respondent. It is also important to point out that when the quality control team of appellants performed a systematic root cause analysis on both the days sample processing, it found no quality control issues and thus there were no technical transcription errors in reports of appellant. Further this post observation of specimen physical quality, the specimens were promptly processed and reported without any quality compromised. And there was no manual errors or quality interference, most of the test analysis of specimens were processed and reported by fully automated analyzers with fully equipped IT supported interfacing systems. Respondent herself admitted that she was having fever when she has given blood sample. The unhealthy condition and intake of any higher dosage drugs can impact on the specific reported test results.
6. Appellant also further submitted that, different techniques are being adopted by different laboratories in conducting various blood tests. The blood specimen of the respondent was tested in the laboratory of the appellant, using ELISA (Enzyme- Linked Immune Sorbent Assay method). The report given by the appellant was the result if automated test process performed on the blood specimen for the required parameter and it gives the medically accepted reference values alongside to facilitate 4 A/1066/2019 finding out any abnormality. Therefore, no deficiency can be attributed to the tests conducted by appellant. in any event , in the case where result of the test parameter shows 'Positive' or out of reference range, the report always caution in bold letters "please correlate with clinical conditions" in the bottom of the every report. The report also under conditions of reporting mentioned inter alia that "results of tests may vary from laboratory to laboratory and also in some parameter from time to time for the same patient". It further indicated under suggestions inter alia that, "value out of reference range requires re-confirmation before starting any medical treatment".
7. Appellant further submitted that, the respondent, without consulting to a doctor and resorting to the confirmative process, reacted on her own and made allegations against and found fault with the report of the appellants. Respondent without issuing notice to the appellant, filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Commission Aurangabad. Ld. District Consumer Commission Aurangabad passed the order against the appellant and directed to the appellant to pay compensation in view of the deficiency in service resulted in medical negligence by the appellant. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7/3/2019 in C.C. No.376/2018 passed 5 A/1066/2019 by the District Consumer Commission Aurangabad, appellant preferred this appeal and seek to quash and set aside the same.
8. Adv. P. C. Mayure appeared for appellant. Adv S.M. Mane appeared for respondent. As per the record, from 11th January 2023, advocate for respondent has been absent, on 25th January 2024 last has been given to the respondent to argue the matter finally but he has not obeyed the order. Therefore, on 18th march 2024 we heard Ld. Adv. P. C. Mayure as well as perused the record.
9. Ld. Adv. P. C. Mayure submitted that there is an apparent legal error in the impugned judgment of the Ld. District Commission Aurangabad on its face in as much as, the Ld. District Commission Aurangabad relied on the legal principal laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab (2005) 6 SSC 1 and Indian medical Association VS V.P. Shantha (1995) 6 SSC 651, which related with the "duty of care" expected from the medical practitioner while treating the patient, where as in present case is related to the pathological Test Report where a laboratory declared the blood test report which has been performed through an automated mechanical process. As per the submission of the Ld. Adv. P. C. Mayure, legal principal laid down by Hon'ble Apex court in 6 A/1066/2019 above cases are not relevant in this case. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service as well as no medical negligence proved in this matter; hence impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Commission Aurangabad is liable to be set aside.
10. We perused the record and also heard the ld. Counsel. This commission has made following observation.
OBSERVATION
11. Against this background, we perused the copy of the Complaint and written version given by the Appellant in original proceedings before the District Consumer Commission Aurangabad. We have also gone through the impugned judgment. It is found that, there is error committed by the Ld. District Consumer Commission Aurangabad on the factual as well as legal aspects.
12. We observed that, the values indicated thereof were only the results of the tests performed on the blood specimen of the respondent through automated mechanical process and the clinical significance mentioned therein was of general nature and suggesting further diagnostic measures which may be required as per the Doctor's advice and it nowhere authoritatively declares that the respondent is suffering from any disease though the test results indicated abnormal value of the test parameter asked on the blood specimen of the 7 A/1066/2019 respondent. It is also important to point out that when the quality control team of appellants performed a systematic root cause analysis on both the days sample processing, it found no quality control issues and thus there were no technical transcription errors in reports of appellant. Further this post observation of specimen physical quality, the specimens were promptly processed and reported without any quality compromised. And there was no manual errors or quality interference, most of the test analysis of specimens were processed and reported by fully automated analyzers with fully equipped IT supported interfacing systems. Respondent herself admitted that she was having fever when she has given blood sample. The unhealthy condition and intake of any higher dosage drugs can impact on the specific reported test results. Therefore we conclude that, there is no deficiency in service as well as no medical negligence proved in this matter; hence impugned judgment passed by the Ld. District Commission Aurangabad is liable to be set aside. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Appeal is hereby allowed.
8 A/1066/2019
2. Impugned Judgment and Order dated 7/3/2019 in CC. No. 376/2018 passed by the Consumer District Redressal Commission Aurangabad is hereby to be set aside. Consequently , complaint is dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copy of this judgment is supplied to the both parties free of cost.
Palce :- Aurangabad.
Date :- 02/05/2024.
N.C.Kumbre Dr.N.A.Chavhan
Member Member
UNK