Rajni Shukla vs Rajendra Kumar Agarwal

THIS revision is directed against an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal in Appeal No. 1054 of 2001 dated 18.11.2002 dismissing the appeal filed by the complainant and allowing the appeal filed by the opposite parties.

THE complainant Smt. Rajni Shukla and her husband Sh. S.P. Shukla filed a complaint before the District Forum against Sh. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, Sh. Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, Smt. Usha Nair, Dr. S.P. Tiwari and the Collector, Satna alleging that Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and Dinesh Kumar Agrawal, are the Director and Proprietor of Mani Pathology Clinic and they neither had any licence nor they had any experience nor any degree nor diploma in pathology to run this pathology clinic. Respondent No. 3, Smt. Usha Nair was Technician, Mani Pathology Clinic. Respondent No. 4 Dr. S.P. Tiwari had provided premises to Private Mani Pathology Clinic without permission of the concerned Department. Mrs. Rajni Shukla was admitted to the hospital on 14.3.1994 at 3.30 a.m. On 14.3.1994, Dr. Smt. Rekha Tripathi advised for urine test for pregnancy test. It is apparent that urine sample was sent from the hospital to Mani Pathology Clinic for pregnancy test during day and working hours of the Pathology Lab. Mani Pathology Clinic issued a negative report for pregnancy on 14.3.1994. It is alleged that after confirming that it was a case of missed abortion, evacuation was done by Dr. Rekha Tiwari. On 20.8.1995, she was found again pregnant and urine test was found positive. On 26.6.1996, the complainant filed a complaint.

In short, the allegations are that the urine report was wrong. This wrong report led to wrong treatment leading to miscarriage and evacuation. Mani Pathology Lab was not registered under the Madhya Pradesh Upacharya Griha Tatha Rujopehar Sambandhi Sthapanaye (Registrikaran Tatha Anugyapan) Adhiniyam, 1973.

THE State Commission considered the affidavit of Smt. Rajni Shukla. In short, she stated in the affidavit that while going up and coming down on the staircase or on lifting some weight there was some pain in abdomen and waist for which treatment was given on 8.3.1994 and 13.3.1994. She further stated that in the intervening night of 13-14.3.1994 at about 1.30 a.m. she had pain and at about 3.30 a.m. i.e., on 14.3.1994, she was admitted in the hospital. THE doctors prescribed some medicines for confirming the pregnancy and advised urine test for pregnancy test. But, the State Commission also considered the prescription dated 14.3.1994, Exh. A5 indicating that Smt. Rajni Shukla was admitted in the Maternity Home for missed abortion. As was advised by Dr. Rekha Tripathi, the urine of Smt. Rajni Shukla was taken to the Laboratory by her husband at about 11 a.m. There is also no dispute that the report indicated negative test for pregnancy. In order to clarify the situation, the petitioner would have done well by examining by Dr. Rekha Tripathi to establish as to whether the abortion had already taken place when she was admitted on the intervening night of 13-14.3.1994. If the abortion had already taken place as it appears from the discharge certificate, there could not be any other way except evacuation and cleaning as was done by Dr. Rekha Tripathi. In order to prove that the report was wrong, fresh sample of urine could have also been taken immediately thereafter and urine report might have sought from other Pathology Centre(s). Without there being any comparison, it would be difficult to say that there was negligence in examining the urine and the report was wrong.

THIS aspect was again considered by the State Commission in the light of medical literature "Colour Atlas of Pathology" by Dr. Frainy E. Palia, Dr. Pradip J. Mehta, 1982 Edition published by Palia Family Trust, Volkart House, 63, West Field Estate Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay 400 026. It was noticed under the caption "Detection of Pregnancy", that "pregnancy testing is on the basis of the quantity of human chorionic gonadotrophin (H.C.G.) formed by the trophoblastic cells beginning about ten days after conception with a rapid rise at about five weeks gestation i.e., after the last menstrual period". "Initially, bioassays involving animals were undertaken e.g. Aschhiem and Zondek test, Friedman and Galli Mannini test. However, these are considered laborious, time consuming and give false negative results especially if drugs or proteins are being excreted in the urine. Bioassays therefore have been discarded from routine use".

We may add further that it is also mentioned as under: "It is important to keep in mind ''false positive'' and ''false negative'' reactions that may occur in cases of excessive proteinuria, phenothiazine drugs abortions, ectopic pregnancies, hydatiform moles and choriocarcinomas."

SINCE it was a case of mis-pregnancy on the intervening night falling between 13-14.3.1994 and urine sample was given at about 11 a.m., the chances of report being correct could not be ruled out just on the basis of surmises. In so far as the report part is concerned, there does not appear any reason about the view taken by the State Commission. The State Commission has rightly dealt with the necessity of registration of Pathology Lab.

IT may be mentioned that by way of amendment on 16.2.1995, Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the said Act was amended by neglecting the proviso to the effect that the Madhya Pradesh Upcharya Griha Tatha Rujopehar Sambandhi Sthapanaye Ragistrikaran Tatha Anugyapan Adhiniyam, 1973 would not require any registration certificate wherein a Govt. employed health worker/health officer was partly employed, in this case it has not been disputed that Dr. Rekha Tripathi was a Government Doctor employed in a Government Hospital, Satna and as such O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 who were running the Pathology Lab would not require any registration certificate. To implead every one without any sufficient reason would amount to abuse of the process. Complainant No. 2 was not expected to file a complaint like the present one.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any substance in this revision. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.