ORDER

Appellant Shri S. Seshadri had filed consumer complaint No.41 of 2009 before Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. He had alleged negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP/Dr. G. Rangarajan regarding issuance of fitness certificate, which allegedly resulted in the Complainant loosing an opportunity for employment in Oman. The State Commission has dismissed the complaint for want of merit.

Facts in brief are that the Complainant had approached the OP for obtaining fitness certificate, in the background of the above mentioned offer of employment in December 2007. Blood test, urine test and x-ray reports were obtained from the Complainant. He was also referred to an ENT specialist, who advised the Complainant to wear hearing-aid on both ears as he was suffering from moderate loss of hearing.

According to the Complainant, he was also advised by the OP to visit Apollo Hospital for a fitness certificate. He informed the OP about his past illness and treatment in the Apollo Hospital in the year 2001 and about the fitness certificate issued in the same year. Yet, the opposite party insisted upon a fresh certificate from the Apollo Hospital.

Having failed to obtain the necessary fitness certificate from the OP, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 04.2.2008, which was replied by the OP on 22.2.2008. The complainant also made a complaint to the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. But the latter did not take any action against the OP. The consumer complaint was filed in the above background.

Per contra, the response of the OP before the State Commission was that the Complainant was asked to produce previous medical records of treatment but had failed to do so. The OP was not in a position to issue fitness certificate without fully ascertaining the detail of earlier treatment, as the Complainant had undergone surgery for seminoma of the testes in the past. Therefore, the Complainant was informed about inability of the OP to issue fitness certificate, without the records of treatment and without current report from the doctor who had operated upon him for seminoma of the testes. Allegedly, he was also orally informed that the OP was under no obligation to issue any certificate of unfitness to the complainant.

We have heard the appellant/Complainant in person. His main contention is that under the GCC Medical Rules only a ‘known case of cancer’ was a disqualification and not a cured case of cancer. He was a cured case of cancer, as per fitness certificate of Apollo Hospital. He has also argued that if the OP did not consider him to fit, he should have issued a certificate of unfitness.

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Commission has fully gone into these contentions of the appellant/Complainant with reference to the evidence brought on record. Record shows that he was diagnose as a case of seminoma of the testes, had undergone treatment from 20.2.2001 to 16.3.2001 and was declared fit to resume duty on 18.3.2001. However, he was also advised review after two months. The State Commission has held that, since the treatment was during the year 2001, the opposite party, in order to issue the relevant certificate of fitness in 2007, had rightly insisted upon the current status relating to the cancer. A known case of cancer is one of the disqualifications, as per Ex.B1. We therefore, agree with the State Commission that the OP could not be fault for his insistence upon the current medical records or to undergo necessary tests for the same before the opposite party.

The appeal is consequently, held to be devoid of any merit. It is dismissed at the stage of admission itself. No orders as to costs.

......................J ASHOK BHAN PRESIDENT ...................... VINEETA RAI MEMBER ......................

VINAY KUMAR MEMBER