State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deepinder Kaur vs Super Religare Laboratories Ltd. on 20 July, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1046 of 2013
Date of institution: 03.10.2013
Date of Decision : 20.07.2015
Deepinder Kaur W/o Alankar Arora R/o H.No.38, SST Nagar, Sunder
Nagar Scheme, Patiala.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Super Religare Laboratories Ltd., Ranbaxy, Collection Centre-
Prime Clinical Lab, 7841/5, Passey Road, Near Gurudawara
Dhukhinwaran Sahib, Patiala through Gurvinder Singh Sandhu.
2. SRL Regional Reference Lab, GP-26, Maruti Industrial Estate,
Udyog Vihar, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana India through its
Laboratory Techinican.
3. SRL Regional Reference Lab, GP-26, Maruti Industrial Estate,
Udyog Vihar, Sector-18, Gurgaon-122015, Haryana.
4. National Insurance Company Ltd., National Insurance Building,
Ground Floor, 8, India Exchange Place, Kolkota-700001 through its
Principal Officer/Incharge.
Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against order dated
26.08.2013 of District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Patiala.
Before:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri. Jasbir Singh Gill, Presiding Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Alankar Arora, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Mrs. G.K. Turka, Advocate
For respondents No.2&3 : Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Ex-parte
FA No 1046 of 2013 2
Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
ORDER
The appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) against the impugned order dated 26.08.2013 passed in CC No.62 of 2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala, (hereinafter in short District Forum), vide which the complaint of complainant was allowed and respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 (hereinafter referred as OP No.1) was directed to pay Rs.965/-with interest @ 10% to the complainant from the date of deposit i.e. 12.01.2013 and further to provide with a sum of Rs.5000/- by way of compensation on the account of harassment and the mental agony and cost of Rs.3000/- and to pay to the OP within one month of receipt of the copy.
2. A consumer complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against the OP on the allegation that she went for the treatment of infertility at Sanjeevani Nursing Home, where Dr. Prem Singla on 12.12.2012 prescribed some tests on II day of menstruation cycle. The sample of the complainant was collected by OP No.1 namely Prime Clinical Lab a collection centre of SRL Regional Reference Laboratory, Gurgoan i.e. OP No.2 and the complainant had made the advance payment of Rs.1500/-.. When the complainant demanded the receipt, OP No.1 said that the same would be delivered along with the reports which will be provided within 4 to 5 days before 19.12.2012, but the reports were FA No 1046 of 2013 3 not provided on or before 19.12.2012. It was further pleaded that on 12.01.2013 report was provided by the OP No.1 after having received Rs.600/-. The reports disclosed that the tests of Follicle Stimulating Hormone Serum (AMH) and Estradiol, Serum (EII) were not conducted by the OPs because of the quantity of the sample being insufficient which resulted into a delay of one month in the treatment of the complainant. It was further pleaded that the Dr. Prem Singla had also doubt about the correctness of the report given by OP-2 regarding the tests of AMH/MIS due to low value of AMH/MIS reported to be 0.1mg/ml and therefore Dr. Prem Singla prescribed another AMH/MIS test which cost the complainant for Rs.1700/-. She again visited OP No.1 and asked for taking an another sample of blood for the test of AMH/MIS without charging anything because of the alteration in the value of the AMH/MIS and also to take the sample for the remaining tests on the basis of the payments already made, but they flatly refused to do so without the payment. It was further pleaded when the complainant demanded the sample collected by OP-1 to conduct the test from some other laboratory but OP-1 threw away the sample in the presence of her husband. It was a deficiency in services on the part of OP No.1 who collected the insufficient sample. Hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant with a prayer that the OP be directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards the harassment and the mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as the fee of the counsel and Rs. 1100/- as the fee of the Clerk of the counsel and Rs.200/- towards the court fee.
FA No 1046 of 2013 4
3. Upon notice, OPs contested the complaint. OP-1 field his written version by taking the preliminary objections that present complaint was based on false facts and result of twisted facts with mala fide intention in order to malign the reputation the OP No.1 and that the complainant did not come to this Forum with clean hands. On merit it was admitted that OP-1 had taken the blood sample of the complainant by visiting the Sanjeevani Hospital of Dr. Prem Singla on 12.12.2012 and there was no male member with the complainant so on telephonic message OP-1 had visited to take and collect the blood sample of the complainant as prescribed by her Doctor for AMH/MIS Follicle Stimulating Hormone Estradiol and Luteinizing Harmone. The total cost for conducting all four tests was approximately Rs.2100/-. But the complainant at the time of taking blood sample paid Rs.1500/- and that she would make the remaining payment to OP-1 of Rs.600/- by visiting their office. But the complainant never visited the office of OP-1 on 12.12.2012 for remaining payment. The blood sample was sent to OP No.2&3 on 13.12.2012 which was received by them on the same day and OP-1 received the report of the test from OP Nos.2&3 on 15.12.2012 at about 19.43 which was handed over to the Sanjeevani Hospital on 16.12.2012 at the receipt counter. The complainant along with her husband had visited the OP-1 on 12.01.2013 and asked to collect the blood sample for further medical tests as prescribed by Dr.Prem Singla. OP-1 demanded the balance payment for earlier tests of AMH and LH which costs Rs.2100/- and out of which the complainant had made the payment of Rs.1500/- and FA No 1046 of 2013 5 thus the complainant had to deposit Rs.600/- more. However the husband of the complainant was adamant in getting further tests conducted free of cost and they will not pay even a single penny for conducting the tests. OP-1 explained that they had already suffered loss of Rs.600/- regarding the earlier tests from their own pocket. It was further submitted that the husband of the complainant pressurized OP-1 to conduct the tests free of cost on which the OP-1 offered to give a discount as complainant had earlier availed the opportunity. At this the husband of the complainant threatened the OP that he is a practicing lawyer in the District Courts Patiala and OP No.1 will face consequences not to oblige the husband of complainant and he will file the complaint before appropriate authority. He further submitted that on 12.01.2013 OP-1 had not taken any blood sample of the complainant, and denied the other allegations made in the complainant.
4. OP Nos.2 & 3 also filed separate written reply taking certain preliminary objections that the complaint contained complicated matter of both facts and laws. This matter required adducing lengthy evidence and also required examination and cross- examination of the witnesses the same cannot be determined under the Summary Jurisdiction of the Forum and it be relegated to the Civil Court. It was further stated that if there was any delay in giving the report by OP-1 to the complainant as alleged by the complainant then OP-1 would be the better person to comment upon the same. It was the sole responsibility of OP-1 to collect the sample from the patient FA No 1046 of 2013 6 at the Prime Laboratory Centre and deliver the complete test report to the patients. The answering OP had to perform the test on the samples provided by the Prime Clinical Lab. There was no deficiency or negligency on the part of the OPs. Therefore, complaint be dismissed against these OPs.
5. OP-4 failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
6. The parties tendered into evidence, in support of his allegations the complainant had tendered into evidence the affidavit as Ex.CA, the affidavit of her husband Ex.CB, along with the documents as Ex.C1 to C7 and evidence was closed by the complainant. On the other hand on behalf of the OP Nos.2&3 they have tendered in evidence Ex.OP/A the sworn affidavit of Sh. Pardeep Kumar Bilandi, Sr. Manager(Legal) of OP at Chandigarh as Ex.OPB, the sworn affidavit of Dr. Aarti Khanna Nagpal, along with the documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-5 and closed their evidence. On behalf of OP-1 they tendered in evidence Ex.OP3 the sworn affidavit of Sh. Gurinder Singh, Prop. of OP-1 along with the document Ex.OP6 to OP9 and closed their evidence.
7. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and perusing the record the learned District Forum allowed the complaint as referred above.
8. Aggrieved with the order the complainant had filed the appeal for enhancement.
FA No 1046 of 2013 7
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
10. Counsel for the complainant argued that there was delay in treatment as the Op-1 had taken the sample which was in-sufficient for conducting the tests as prescribed by Dr. Prem Singla. Due to delay in test reports the complainant could not bear child and it may be possible if the tests were conducted at time and treatment was taken immediately. Complainant further stated that OP-1 had taken blood sample and flatly refused for conducting the AMH/MIS test free of cost. When complainant asked OP No.1 to give back blood sample collected by them so that the complainant could get the test from an other laboratory, then OP No.1 had thrown away the sample of blood collected from the complainant in the front of her husband. Adequate compensation was not granted. The appeal was filed for enhancement.
11. The counsel of the OP No.1 argued that there was no delay on their part. As per rules when a customer paid the whole amount of test to OP No.1, then they send the blood sample of their customer to OP Nos.2&3 because OP No.1 had to pay in advance the whole amount of tests to OP Nos.2&3. OP No.1 was working as collection agent of OP No.2&3. After taking the blood sample of complainant the same was sent to OP No.2&3 on 13.12.2012 which was received by them on the same day. On 15.12.2012 at about 19:43 OP No.1 had received the report of test from OP No.2&3 which was handed over to the receipt counter of Sanjeevani Hospital on FA No 1046 of 2013 8 16.12.2012. The complainant never visited to collect the report before 12.01.2013 so there was no delay on their part.
12. We have perused the record and evidence. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant had given her blood sample on 12.12.2012 for the test of AMH/MIS. Dispute arose on the basis of report Ex.C-2 in which they had not given the report regarding the Follicle Stimulating Hormone Serum (AMH) and Estradiol because the quantity of the blood sample being insufficient. Ex.C-3 receipt dated 12.01.2013 in which the balance amount had been shown Rs.600/-. In the affidavit of complainant Ex.CA she had also admitted in Para 7 that after taking Rs.600/- as the balance of amount they gave report of the test conducted by OP No.2&3.
13. So far as delay is concerned, it has been explained by OP No.1 that on 16.12.2012 he had submitted the report to the counter of Hospital but the complainant come to receive the report on 12.01.2013 therefore delay was on the part of complainant. There is no evidence on behalf of complainant that he had gone to collect the report before 12.01.2013 if so on what date. Another grievance of the complainant was that OP No.1 had thrown the blood sample in the presence of her husband is without any evidence. The complainant had not produced any evidence that she had given the fresh sample again and had made a payment for any test. When the OPs had flatly refused for conduct the AMH/MIS test free of cost and they had also denied that they had taken the sample again. In case no blood sample was taken for second time the question of throwing it does not arise. The FA No 1046 of 2013 9 complainant is pressing on the ground that the factum of throwing the sample was not denied by the OPs in the pleadings is not sufficient. There must be some evidence that blood sample was taken. Therefore, no deficiency in services on the part of OP-1 on this account.
14. As per above discussion, we are of the view that District Forum has already granted sufficient compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service committed by OP No.1 for getting insufficient blood sample and there is no ground to enhance the amount. The appeal of the complainant is without merit and is hereby dismissed.
15. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 06.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules. Appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
` Presiding Judicial Member
(Jasbir Singh Gill)
Presiding Member
July 20, 2015. (Surinder Pal Kaur)
PK/- Member