JUDGMENT

Sangita dhingra sehgal, President—The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:—

“The brief conspectus of facts of the present complaint are that the Respondent Hospital is providing services of Pathology Laboratory. On 10/12/2009 the complainant gave blood samples for Kidney Function Test, Liver Function Test, CBC and Blood Sugar Fasting at the Pathology Lab of the Respondent Hospital vide Receipt No.350005886 and 350005887 for Rs.516/- and Rs.30/- respectively. The report revealed ESR - 16 and TLC-12100. TLC of 12100 is an indicator of infection in the body of the complainant and for detecting it various investigations, involving heavy expenditure, were necessary. The said report panicked and stressed the complainant greatly but he was relieved when somebody suggested him that if he had no symptoms suggestive of infection, the pathological report did not reflect the true picture. The said gentleman also told him that the Respondent Hospital did not have a good reputation and is known for indulging in unfair trade practices viz giving false test reports and inducing the patient to get further expensive tests done from it. The complainant confronted the Respondent Hospital when they gave a false test report of Blood Sugar Random when the complainant had given a blood sample for Blood Sugar Fasting Test. The complainant approached the Respondent Hospital with the alleged wrong reports. They took back the reports from him and offered him to take fresh blood sample for CBC Test. The Fresh Report revealed TLC as 9700 which does not reflect any infection. It shows that the earlier report was false. Fresh ESR Test Report revealed ESR at 40 which was also contradictory to the earlier report. The Fresh Reports of Liver Function Test and Kidney Function Test also differed from the earlier reports. The complainant protested to the Respondent Hospital through his letter dated 12/12/2009. The Respondent Hospital admitted the discrepancy in the two reports and tried to justify its unethical and false report by taking the plea that sample taken at different times of the day show variations which are acceptable as per the standards of Haematology. It is submitted that empty stomach sample should show low and correct TLC and ESR as compared to the sample taken in the evening but the test report reflected vice - versa results. The complainant vide e-mail dated 20/12/2009 to the Respondent Hospital revealed the said matter and pointed out deficiency on their part in serving its patients. The complainant pointed out that the Lab Report Register of the Respondent Hospital contained two readings of Blood Test Reports of the complainant one that was originally made showing false test reports of TLC, ESR, SGOT, SGPT, etc. and the other which were recorded later on after the complaint of the complainant by cutting the earlier readings. The complainant had sought copies of the relevant extracts of the said register under the RTI Act but in vain. Under constant worry and strain, the complainant to clear his doubts got his blood tests conducted thrice subsequent to the false test reports dated 10/12/2009. The blood test reports given by other leading pathological labs also substantiate his claim that the test reports dated 10/12/2009 of the Respondent Hospital were false. The complainant has claimed symbolic compensation of Rs.21,000/- with costs from the Respondent.

The Respondent No.1 while denying all the allegations of the complainant has contended that the present complaint is a case of deliberately defaming the Respondent Hospital for the purpose of illegal extortion of money from it. It has also raised the plea that since it is a matter of medical negligence in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Martin F. D’Souza vs. Mohd. Ishfaq in Civil Appeal No.354/2002 following the dictum of Jacob Mathew’s case wherein it has been held that the matter should be referred to a committee of doctors specia