State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Swapan Kumar Samanta vs Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. on 30 April, 2010
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/429/2009 DATE OF FILING : 03.11.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.04.2010 APPELLANT Dr. Swapan Kumar Samanta S/o Late Golak Behari Samanta Residing at 5/13, Sarat Pally, Belghoria, Kolkata-700 056. RESPONDENT Thyrocare Technologies Ltd. Carrying on business at and from inter alia, 65/1, Feeder Road, Kolkata-700 056. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. S.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: None : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 25.6.09 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in D.F. Case No. 210/05 wherein the Ld. Forum dismissed the complaint case without any cost.
The Appellant/Complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the ailing father of the complainant urgently required blood. The complainant who intended to donate blood for his father, got his blood sample tested from the OP hospital laboratory where his father was admitted. The test report indicated presence of HCV in the blood. A second report conducted by the OP also indicated HCV positive. The complainant suffered from mental agony and trauma due to such blood test report. However, for abundant precaution the complainant got his blood sample tested from several other diagnostic centres including School of Tropical Medicines and on each occasion the reports indicated that the complainant was not suffering from HCV. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with such test report conducted by the OP, the complainant sought for redressal from the Ld. District Forum by filing complaint case thereby claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 6,000/- towards cost of further blood test.
The Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint has observed that the complainant having failed to substantiate his case of deficiency of service on part of the OP as mentioned in the petition of complaint, there was no merit in the petition of complaint and accordingly dismissed the case.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant that the Ld. District Forum has totally failed to appreciate the real controversy raised by the complainant/Appellant and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate, when the complainant has produced all the supportive materials in support of the allegations levelled against the OP so far as it relates to deficiency in service, there was no point on the part of the Ld. District Forum to disbelieve the case of the Appellant/Complainant. While criticizing the impugned judgement the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the manner in which Ld. District Forum has made out a case in favour of the OP by relying upon the reply of the OP through its Ld. Advocate and accepting the same as written version on behalf of the OP thereby completely ignoring the fact that the case was taken up for ex parte hearing, clearly goes to show that Ld. District Forum was suffering from misconception and on this score alone, the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant while elaborating on this point has urged before us that no one prevented the OP to enter appearance in the complaint case and could have very much contested the case. But when the OP inspite of being noticed sat tight by simply tendering some vague and wild pleas, there was no justification on the part of the Ld. District Forum to discard the case of the complainant, who has not only produced all the cards in support of his case but also did file evidence on affidavit which has remained unchallenged.
While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate has submitted that the Ld. District Forum having considered the case from a negative angle has erred in proper appreciation of the case and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submission put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgement and find that in this case, the complainant has put forward a case thereby alleging deficiency in service at the instance of the OP, who had furnished a blood test report of the complainant indicating existence of HCV positive though actually it was not so as substantiated through subsequent test reports.
Admittedly, the case was heard ex parte. If that be the position, we are of the opinion that it was not just and proper on the part of the Ld. District Forum to discard the complainants case simply because the OP sent reply to Advocates notice through its advocate thereby raising some pleas and disputing the case of the complainant. In this regard, we find much substance in the submission put forward by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant as mentioned above.
Considering the present matter in the light of the above discussions we find merit in the present Appeal and the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed ex parte without cost. The complaint case stands allowed. The Appellant do get compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) towards cost of further investigation of his blood. The OP/Respondent is directed to pay the decretal amount within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 10% (ten per cent) per annum on the aforesaid amount till realization in full.
MEMBER MEMBER