State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Saurabh Pandey vs Dr. Rajkumar M.D. (Pathology & Micro) & ... on 13 January, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/2810)
Appeal No.529/2011
Instituted on : 27.09.2011
Saurabh Pandey, S/o Shri Laxmishankar Pandey,
Present Address : E.W.S.1239
Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.)
Permanent Address :
Village - Jagatpur Vishnukheda,
District - Raibareli (U.P.) .... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Dr. Rajkumar, M.D.(Pathology & Micro),
Address : Bhilai Scan & Research Limited,
Near Chouhan Tower, G.E.Road,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.)
2. M.K. Khanduja,
Address : Bhilai Scan & Research Limited,
Near Chouhan Tower, G.E.Road,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondents.
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri Rajesh Pandey, for appellant.
Miss Praveen Arora, for respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
DATED : 13/01/2012 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT The appellant herein, was complainant before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.389/2010 and his // 2 // complaint was dismissed vide order dated 29/08/2011 by the District Forum, on the ground that the complainant failed to establish that any negligence was committed by the respondents, in conducting his blood test.
2. The allegation of the complainant against respondents was that he was suffering from illness and contacted Dr. I.P. Dixit, on 16/08/2010, who suspected symptom of Jaundice and advised him for blood test. Complainant went to laboratory of O.P. No.2 for blood test, where it was found that complainant was suffering from Jaundice, then on 25.08.2010 again second sample of his blood was taken to ascertain, as to whether there is some improvement after taking medicines, but, when second time the blood of the complainant was examined, then it was found that Serum Bilirubin level was exceeding. In the Report dated 25.08.2010, total Serum Bilirubin was 19.82 mg/dl, direct 9.20 mg/dl, indirect 10.62 mg/dl. Similarly liver functions were also examined and SGOT was found 2086 IU/L. When this Report was shown by the complainant to Dr. I.P. Dixit, then he started wondering and was of the view that the report was not correct. The complainant was also feeling that he is not that much unwell, which necessitated him to be admitted in I.C.U. Then, immediately on the same day another sample of blood was examined in Agrawal Pathology Lab, Bhilai from where another report was received, which was showing level of Serum Bilirubin at 8.4 MG/DL, direct Serum // 3 // Bilirubin was 6.2 MG/DL and indirect Serum Bilirubin was 2.2 MG/DL. Value of S.G.O.T. was also less. When this report was seen by Dr.I.P. Dixit, then he opined that respondents have committed negligence in conducting blood test and he had also written a letter to the respondents in this regard. Alleging it as deficiency in service on the part of respondents, a consumer complaint was filed before District Forum.
3. Respondents resisted the allegations leveled in the complaint by averting that Test Report dated 25.08.2010 given by them was correct and on 17.08.2010 Serum Bilirubin was total 10.2 M.G./D.L. whereas on 25.08.2010 it was 19.84 M.G./D.L. Similarly, the value of direct and indirect Serum Bilirubin had also exceeded. It has been specified that all tests were conducted by Automatic Biochemistry Analyzer, BS-300 Mindray Nicholous Machine, which is latest machine in the field and the report is 100% right. Thus, respondents have not committed any negligence in conducting blood test of the complainant/appellant.
4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material available on record, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order.
5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused record of the District Forum.
// 4 //
6. We find that no expert opinion has been brought on record by the complainant/appellant to show that report given by the respondent No.1 was a wrong report or that he performed blood test negligently. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prima facie the report dated 25.08.2010 was found wrong by Dr.I.P. Dixit. But Dr. I.P. Dixit is not a Pathologist and he expressed his opinion on the basis of report of other Pathological Lab. Therefore, we do not find much substance in this argument that negligence be presumed on the basis of opinion expressed by Dr. I.P. Dixit in the letter dated 26/08/2010 Annexure - 5, wherein it has been said that in view of the report of another Laboratory test in the Lab of respondent No.1 appears to have been conducted carelessly. We feel that this letter of Dr. I.P. Dixit, can not be treated as expert opinion.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the complaint was also made by the appellant to District Magistrate and said complaint is being inquired by the administration and report is likely to be received in short time. He further submitted that an opportunity be granted to appellant to file such report in consumer complaint, in support of the case of medical negligence as alleged against respondents.
8. We find that at present, no evidence is available, on the basis of which the allegation of negligence while conducting blood test, can be // 5 // said to be established conclusively against respondents, therefore, the complaint in the present form, is liable to be dismissed and District Forum has not committed any mistake in dismissing the complaint. However, if in any inquiry report in future, any competent authority finds the respondents negligent in conducting blood test of the appellant, then appellant will always have a liberty to file a fresh complaint on the basis of such report of competent authority, which conclusively establish negligence against respondents. With this liberty, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C. Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/01/2012 /01/2012