IMPORTANT POINT
Diagnostic center - The OP’s diagnostic centre has facilities with automated biochemistry analyzers and other systems. Therefore, the blood sugar report of 71.6 mg% was not conclusively wrong and the OP’s centre shall not be liable.

ORDER

The Petitioners/Original Complainant has filed the instant Revision Petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh in First Appeal No.393 of 2016, wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1 / Opposite Party No. 1 and set aside the judgement passed by the District Forum, Durg, Chhattisgarh.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. On March 29, 2015, K. Aditya (for short, the ‘patient’), the son of the Complainant, was taken to Dr. P.C. Aggarwal for his ill-health who advised to get some pathology tests done. The tests were carried out at the Images Diagnostic & Pathology Centre (OP) on March 30, 2015. The reports were normal, but K. Aditya’s health did not improve. On April 2, 2015, he was taken to Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical and Research Centre (for short ‘PJLNM’) and admitted in ICU. The pathological tests were done again and found to be diabetic. His blood sugar was 520 m.g.% dangerously high. He was treated there and discharged on April 9, 2015. It was alleged that the OP’s Centre was negligent, it reported normal sugar level, and therefore, treatment for diabetes was delayed. The life of Aditya was in danger. The Complainant alleged that the OP was responsible for the mental agony and financial losses. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed a Complaint to claim Rs.50,000/- for the treatment expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, and costs etc.

4. The OP No.1 filed a Written Statement and denied any negligence or deficiency in service. The blood sugar was tested as per the standard specified procedure and report was correct. The OP further submitted that blood sugar level can vary depending on various factors such as meal intake, stress, etc. It was not proved that the life of the patient was under threat due to such report. The OP No.1 further stated that the complainant has not produced any document to prove that the reading taken by the PJLNM itself was correct. The OP-1 submitted that their centre is insured from United India Insurance Company Limited.

5. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP-1 to pay Rs. 50,000/- with 12% interest till the date of payment, Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.

6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the OP-1 filed the First Appeal No.393 of 2016 before the State Commission at Raipur. The State Commission allowed the Appeal and set-aside the Order of the District Forum with the following observation:—

“...21. In this case also, no allegation has been made in connection with the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 that he was not qualified pathologist and any report of Medical Board has also not been produced, which contradicts the report of the Medical Board and in these circumstances, only on the basis of Statement of the respondent No. 1/complainant, it cannot be stated that the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 has committed any kind of medical negligence.

22. In pursuance to above analysis, the respondent No. 1/complainant has completely failed in proving this that the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 has committed any kind of medical negligence and due to which itself, there had been fall in the health of the respondent No. 1/complainant and due to which, the respondent No. 1/complainant was admitted in Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru Medical and Research Centre, Sector -9 Bhilai on dated 02.04.2015 and there his blood sugar level was high, on that ground itself, report given by the appellant/non applicant No. 1 cannot be considered false and erroneous and in these circumstances, the District Forum has given this conclusion that the appellant/non-applicant No. 1 has committed medical negligence, which is erroneous and doesn’t deserve to be upheld.”

7. Being dissatisfied