ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58(1)(B) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 18.04.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 41/2021 in which order dated 29.01.2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kasaragod (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 173/2019 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the State Commission and order dated 29.01.2021 passed by the District Forum.

2. The Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission in FA/41/2021 and Complainant before the District Forum in Complaint No. 173/2019.

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 31.08.2023. Parties filed Written Arguments on 12.12.2023 (Petitioner) and 14.12.2023 and 29.01.2024 (Respondent) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as presented by the complainant and emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that:—

On 12.07.2019, the Complainant consulted Dr. Beena as he was suffering from stomach pain. Dr. Beena advised for sono scanning at OP’s scanning centre. The OP conducted scanning on him, the report issued by OP revealed that there was serious illness in the liver and gallbladder. Dr. Beena advised the complainant to have expert medical treatment. Therefore, the complainant went to Kasturba Medical College (KMC) for scanning and further treatment. After scanning at KMC, it was revealed that the complainant was not suffering from any illness in the liver or gall bladder. OP issued a wrong scan report, which suggested liver disease, the complainant suffered much mental agony and hardships, hence, filed complaint before the District Forum.

5. Vide Order dated 29.01.2021, in the CC No. 173/2019, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service along with litigation cost of Rs3000/- with one month of the receipts of the order.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.01.2021 of District Forum, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 18.04.2023 in FA No. 41/2021 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.

7. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 18.04.2023 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i. The State Commission erred in granting the order dated 18.04.2023, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner did not provide any advise to the Respondent regarding any disease.

ii. The Sono Scanning procedure does not fall under the purview of medical negligence and deficiency in service.(Relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri & Ors. Vs. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6507 of 2009).

iii. It is an admitted fact that the respondent did not consult the petitioner and the petitioner did not provide any advice regarding any disease.Therefore, there was no breach of duty on the part of the petitioner.The petitioner conducted the Sono Scanning using standard procedures and techniques, and there is no dispute regarding the same.The scanning report handed over to the respondentmentions the limitations of ultrasound scanning and suggests seeking a review scanning with investigations in case of a difference of opinion.

iv. The State Commission failed to appreciate the existence of two contradictory reports.The State C