State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sqn. Ldr. S.D, Mitroo (Regd.) vs Dr. Lal Path Labs (P) Ltd. on 30 January, 2017
Daily Order IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Arguments: 30.01.2017 Date of decision : 10.02.2017 First Appeal No. 399/2013 In the matter of: Sqn. Leader S.D.Mitroo (Retd.) C-95, Panchsheel Enclave New Delhi-110017 ......Appellant Versus 1.
Dr. Lal Paths Labs Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director Sh. Kapil Bhalla 54, Hanuman Road New Delhi-110001.
2. Dr. Kapil Bhalla Head Validations & Consultant Dr. Lal Paths Labs Pvt. Ltd.
"Eskay House", 54, Hanuman Road New Delhi-110001.
CORAM SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the Judgement? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes JUDGEMENT Shri O,P. Gupta, Member(JUDICIAL) Complainant assailed order dated 14.02.13 passed by District Forum 2 in complaint No. 1219/07.
2. The appellant filed a complaint pleading that since Sept., 2006 he had occasional "Bleeding Prostrate Gland' in his semen for which he was under investigation at ECHS and Army Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt. The relevant test conducted at various laboratories showed no traces of any specific ailment/infection. On the advice of his treating hospital he submitted his sample of semen for testing with OP No. 4 on 04.04.07. On 5th May, 2007 he produced the report given by OP 4 to his treating hospital who decided to treat him for Tuberculosis of Prostrate.. Doctor prescribed an appropriate plan for tuberculosis "ATT treatment for tuberculosis". He started treatment on 8th May, 2007. By about 11 May 2007 he started having rashes like prickly heat all over his body. His condition deteriorated and he again consulted his doctor who prescribed some anti allergic medicine, stopped ATT and referred the case for review by Urologist on 16.05.07. He was examined by Urologist who suggested some medicine. There was no relief. He sought second opinion on 04.08.07 but to no relief, He approached cardiologist of Army Hospital who advised him to undergo Platelet Count and Platelet Function Test was found to be normal after stopping Disprin. The bleeding tendency was opined due to disprin and no inherited platelet dysfunction was found.
3. Complainant felt that he got wrong medication due to wrong diagnosis of TB infection by OP 4 which misled the entire team. The complainant suffered physically, mentally, socially and professionally. The OP asked him to submit his medical history which was confidential and private information of an individual. Hence he filed complaint to punish severely so that other culprit companies of same kind may be afraid to indulge into such acute deficiency with unprofessional, unethical, negligence and careless pattern of professionalism with no respect to moral code of conduct and unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed for grant of minimum award.
4. OP No. 2 & 3 were given up by the complainant. OP No. 3 & 4 filed WS stating that treating doctor at Army Hospital advised the complainant for carrying out "PCR DNA Analysis for Mycobacterium Tuberculosis(Myco-sure)." Complainant submitted his semen and after examination they gave report on 30.04.07. The report was correct and accurate based upon sample of the semen given by the complainant. The test was conducted with due care and caution. OP did not suggest any line of treatment. The same was suggested by treating doctor. Ops denied that wrong diagnosis of TB misled the entire team treating the complainant. Diagnosis and line of treatment react differently. It was possible that complainant might be allergic to drugs because of which he developed skin rashes. The complainant did not have any other comparative report negating the factum of his having TB. So it was inappropriate to challenge the report of OP. Bleeding of prostrate gland is just one of the symptom of TB of Prostrate and genitor urinary tract and not the sole symptom as sought to be suggested by complainant. Report dated 30.04.07 showed that test carried out was meant to check the "Acid Fast Bacilli (AFB)" in the specimen provided by complainant and not the platelet in the blood of complainant. OP had no where stated in its report that bleeding prostrate gland was due to tuberculosis of complainant. If complainant was not satisfied with said report, he should have immediately got reconfirmation but he did not do so. The allegations made by complainant are just to gain unjust enrichment at the cost of OP.
5. Both the parties filed their evidence by affidavit. They filed written arguments. After going through the material on record the district forum found that complainant failed to prove his case. Hence the complaint was dismissed. The district forum found that complainant relied upon report of Army Hospital to prove that report of OP was wrong. The said report merely stated that platelets function was normal after stopping disprin. Bleeding tendency was due to disprin, not inherited platelet dysfunction.
6. The complainant sought clarification/explanation from OP vide letter dated Oct., 07. OP replied that its report was correct.
7. The district forum observed that complainant did not bring any other comparative report negating the factum of complainant having tuberculosis of prostrate. The only report submitted by him was report of Army hospital which was relating to platelet function. There was no reason to disbelieve OP that bleeding of prostrate gland could be due to long time medication of disprin, not due to tuberculosis of prostrate as suggested by report of OP.
8. The district forum also observed that it was admitted by complainant that he was using aspirin and disprin since long. He himself filed cutting of Hindustan Times dated 02.09.09 which recited that daily aspirin was not so good for one's health.
9. In appeal the contention of the appellant is that on 20.09.07 Army Hospital dignosed him that bleeding tendency was due to disprin. The another contention of the appellant is that district forum committed error while believing that laboratory of OP is duly accredited and certified pathological lab. I do not find any such observation in the order of the district forum.
10. The appellant tried to develop an argument that the district forum failed to appreciate letter dated 26.05.2010 from National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL) which stated that laboratory of OP was not accredited for "In house test equipment" for the period 01.04.07 to 31.03.10. The district forum committed grave error by observing that in order to negate the report of a particular laboratory, appellant was to bring comparative report from any other lab of higher repute.
11. I have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The appellant tried to make out much out of letter dated 26.05.2017 which is at page 54 of bunch of reply filed by respondent from NABL stating that Lab of OP was not accredited for "In house test equipment".
12. Counsel for respondent tried to demolish the said plea by submitting that reply dated 05.08.12 given by NABL to OP copy of which is at page 61 of the bunch of reply which recites that Lab of OP was accredited medical laboratory under ISO for the period 11.01.07 to 05.08.07 and was accredited on the date of said reply also. The reply further states that earlier reply dated 26.05.10 under RTI Act simply meant that NABL was not mandated to grant accreditability to "In house test equipment" and hence it was replied that Dr. Lal Path Lab Pvt. Ltd. Was not accredited for "In house test equipment". The same in no way meant that Dr. Lal Path Pvt. Ltd did not have a valid NABL accreditation.
13. I feel that reply dated 05.08.12 supra has ended controversy that Lab of OP was not accredited.
14. In any event counsel for the respondent submitted that accreditation of lab of respondent that NABL was not the basis of complaint. The same did not find place at all in the complaint. The complainant laid his hand on letter dated 26.05.2010 much after filing of complaint in 2007. Moreover, "In house test equipment" does not need any significance. The same simply mean 'carrying out of test in the laboratory of OP itself 'and not getting the same tested from outside.
15. The counsel for respondent filed copy of Clinical Establishment(Regn.) and Regulation Act 2010 which provide for registration and regulation of clinical establishment in the country. The same was subsequent to the report in question given by respondent in 2007. The Act has no retrospective application. Not only this the Act merely provides for enabling provisions to a laboratory to get itself registered with NABL. The same is not mandatory. Infact the parties stated so on 30.01.2017 during the course of hearing.
16. The counsel for the respondent submitted that undisputedly appellant was taking disprin since long. Disprin is a blood thinner and it could be that bleeding of the appellant was due to continued usage of disprin. Subsequent report of Army Hospital supports this plea of the respondent. They find the functioning of platelet to be normal after stoppage of disprin.
17. Counsel for respondent also submitted that district forum has rightly observed that report of the lab of OP could be termed as wrong only if there had been some contra report from a reputed lab. The complainant did not do so. So even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that report of OP was not correct, even then merely because report is wrong does not make OP liable. The complainant has to show that OP ought to have conducted some other test which it did not do or that OP conducted a test which was not required. If OP has taken sufficient care, it cannot be held liable, In support of his submission he relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) VI SCCI.
18. The contention of the counsel for respondent appears to be correct.
19. From the above discussion I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed.
Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
One copy of the order be sent to district forum.
( O.P.GUPTA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)