SHASHI BALA vs SUSHIL KUMAR

VIDE this order two appeals (Nos. 1047 and 1048 of 1997) filed by Shashi Bala and Rupesh Kumar, the opposite parties are being disposed of. They were directed by the District Forum, Amritsar vide order dated August 27, 1997 to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/ - and costs of litigation of Rs. 500/ - to the complainant Sushil Kumar. Alongwith the appeals applications for condoning delay in filing the same have been filed giving identical grounds.

MANISHA aged about 4 1/2 years daughter of Sushil Kumar, the complainant was ill. She was taken to Dr. Khetar Paul of Amritsar for diagnosis and treatment. The Doctor advised certain tests including blood test to be got done from Real Laboratory, Amritsar owned by the opposite parties at 20% concession in the charges. The said Laboratory tested the blood of Manisha and submitted the report in short observing the result as positive for Australia Antigen (one of the liver function test). Subsequently the blood samples of the patient were got tested from other laboratories, such as B.C. Bhandari Clinical Laboratory and Bharat Diagnostic and the reports were in the negative for such a test. District Forum was approached that the blood test report submitted by the opposite parties was fictitious and incorrect. They claimed compensation. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. Rupesh Kumar admitted having performed the test but denied that it was incorrect. According to him Shashi Bala was not the owner of the Laboratory but he himself was the owner. Similar plea was taken by Shashi Bala that she had no concern with the Laboratory. Both the parties produced their evidence on affidavits and documents. On behalf of the complainant, the reports of the two other doctors as referred to above were also produced. On the evidence produced District Forum passed the impugned order. In the applications for condoning delay in filing the appeals, it is stated that both the appeals were prepared for being filed in the State Commission on October 29, 1997, they were expected to be filed on November 3, 1997 as in between were public holidays. Rupesh Kumar suddenly fell ill and was unable to move about from 3rd to 8th November, 1997. Hence on 9th November, 1997 the appeals were filed. In support of the applications affidavit of Shashi Bala and Rupesh Kumar were filed. In one of the appeals i.e. Appeal No. 1048 of 1997 alongwith these affidavits medical certificate issued by Dr. Usha Dewan dated November 8, 1997 and a receipt for payment of Rs. 150/ - to Dr. Usha Dewan dated November 8, 1997 were produced. These applications have been contested without filing any reply. However, since the assertions are supported by affidavits and medical certificates we hold that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellants in not filing the appeals within time and the same is condoned.

MR . Updip Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants while commenting upon the observations of the District Forum, which are adverse to the opposite parties, argued that there was no occasion for reporting adversely against the opposite parties that Real Laboratory owned by the opposite parties was nothing but practice of quackery. He has further argued on merits that the report of the Real Laboratory is correct and is as per the advice of the Physician. With regard to the other two reports, it is stated that they were based on the other kind of tests i.e. Elisa. We have gone through the entire evidence produced in the case and we are of the opinion that the District Forum was fully justified in commenting upon the functioning of the Real Laboratory.

THE report of the Real Laboratory is at page 45 of the District Forum records. It does not purport to bear signatures of any doctor or qualified pathologist. Rupesh Kumar does not claim to be a qualified doctor or pathologist as per his affidavit filed. Both the affidavits of Rupesh Kumar as well as Shashi Bala are silent as to who performed the tests on the blood sample of Manisha. Thus it would appear that this Laboratory is run by unqualified persons although the opposite parties are closely related to Dr. Ashok Bhandari. It is not the case that Dr. Ashok Bhandari is competent pathologist and is competent to examine the samples. Apart from the above, there is distinctive variation in the three reports produced on the file, details of which are given as under : ''Real Lab. Total Serum Bilirubin 2.3 mg% Direct 2.0 mg% Indirect 0.3 mg% S.G.O.T. 109.4 KU/ml S.G.P.T. 163.2 KU/ml S. Alkaline Phosphatase - MU/ml S. Phosphatase Acid - MU/ml Australia Antigen Positive Bharat Diagnostics : S. Bilirubin Total 5.70 mg/dl Australia Antigen Negative Dr. B.C. Bhandari Clinical Lab. Serum Bilirubin Direct 3.0 mgs Total 6.6 mgs S.G.O.T. 740.4 units S.G.P.T. 1240.2 units Australia Antigen Non -Reactive (Elisa)'' It may be observed that it is Dr. B.C. Bhandaris report if compared with the report of Real Laboratory, would be sufficient to hold that no sanctity is to be attached to the report of Real Laboratory. The District Forum after comparing these reports observed that factually Real Laboratorys report is an imaginary report and is not based on real test.

IN this era running of laboratories for conducting pathological tests on charging fees from the public and preparing incorrect and false reports by unqualified persons is nothing but unfair trade practice, which should be curbed. The malpractice going on in the medical profession in connivance with the owners of such laboratories has to be dealt with strongly as ultimately it is the public whose health is at stake and is made to suffer.

IN the present case on suspicion being raised, the complainant got other blood samples of his daughter tested otherwise may be that at the hands of the doctor relying upon such a report the patient was to be unnecessarily fed with drugs and made to suffer mental torture in such circumstances which can well be imagined. The complainant is to be suitably compensated for the negligent act of the opposite party. It was argued that Shashi Bala is not the owner of the Real Laboratory and it was Rupesh Kumar. This contention as such cannot be accepted, in the absence of any documentary evidence produced on the file regarding the actual owner of the Laboratory or the premises where the Laboratory has been opened.

FINDING no merit in the appeals, the same are dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/ - consolidated. Appeals dismissed with costs. -