Deficiency in service found where the issuance of a medical certificate did not comply with established guidelines, leading to unfair trade practices.

1. This is an appeal filed under S.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 30.11.2016 in C.C. No. 20/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short). As per the order, the appellant / first opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.One lakh within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the complainant is entitled for 18% interest from the due date till realisation of the amount.

2. Brief details of the complaint are as follows.
The complaint pertains to a medical certificate, prescribed for employment in Gulf Cooperation Council countries, which stated the complainant as 'unfit' after having conducted the medical check up by the first opposite party. The complainant was employed in Saudi Arabia. He came on leave for 15 days on 21.8.2013. As there was some delay in his return, he was given a new visa by the second opposite party and he was required to comply with the medical check up requirements. The appellant is an approved medical centre as per the norms of Gulf co - operation Council States (GCC) authorised to conduct mandatory medical check up to those who are seeking employment in GCC countries. The complainant approached them for medical checkup on 21.11.2013 and his X - ray showed a right upper zone fibrosis which is a bar for entry into Gulf countries . The certificate was issued as per the norms of the GCC, after verifying the report of the chest X - ray by a qualified radiologist stationed at Bombay. An amount of Rs.4,200 was paid to the first opposite party towards fee form medical check up. After knowing about the 'unfit' medical report issued by the appellant the complainant approached Dr. P. Sukumaran, a pulmonologist, Bharat Hospital, Kottayam, for a second opinion. He certified that complainant does not have any evidence of any active respiratory disease clinically and radiologically. Request for review of the report on the basis of this certificate was refused by the opposite party. Complainant's employer made a request in this regard which was also not accepted. The complainant alleges that unfit medical certificate produced by the first opposite party is false and it was issued with ulterior motive to give visa to somebody else. Thus they purposefully denied employment opportunity to the complainant. The complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties and claimed a compensation of Rs.Ten lakh towards financial loss and mental agony as he lost his employment opportunity abroad only because of the false medical certificate.

3. Opposite party filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. They issued the medical report as per the prescribed guidelines and so there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences marked as Exbts. A1 to A5 on the part of the complainant and Exbts. B1 to B6 on the part of the opposite parties. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. First opposite party adduced oral evidence through their administrator DW1.

5. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the District Commission passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order the first opposite party has filed this appeal.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical certificate was issued as per the procedures prescribed by the GCC. There was no lapse on their part in issuing the medical certificate (Exbt B2). Appellant contends t