IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 13.10.2014 Date of Hearing: 18.03.2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 FIRST APPEAL NO. 984/2014 IN THE MATTER OF DR. LAL PATHLABS PVT. LTD., SECTOR-18, BLOCK-E, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085.

(Through: Mr. V. D’Costa, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS MR. INDER PRAKASH WADHWA R/O J-9, KAILASH COLONY, NEW DELHI-110048 (Through: Mr. Aakash Khattar, Advocate)

…Respondents CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present: Mr. V. D’Costa, along with Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Counsel for the appellant.

(Email: hsharma@luthra.com).

Mr. Aakash Khattar, counsel for the respondent, (aaksh.k@aspartners.co.in)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“Aggrieved with the wrong report given by OP Pathological Laboratory complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming the following reliefs against the OP laboratory.

Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.)

i. Payment of claim as detailed at 10,85,907.33 page 10-11 of the Complainant.

ii. Amount paid to Dr. Dang Lab for 300.00 Investigation iii. Amount paid to Religare SRL Diagnostics 295.00 for investigation iv. Cost towards litigation expense to be 55,500.00 incurred for pursuing the recovery.

_______________

Total 11,42,002.33 v. Any other relief which the forum may deem fit.

The same OP laboratory is impleaded by the complainent in the complaint at the address of branch office as well as of the head office, so the two OPs shown in the complaint are treated as one, and singular language is used for them in this final order.

The OP laboratory was put to notice of the complaint, who contested the complaint and filed reply praying for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. In the rejoinder the complainant has denied the averments made in the reply of the OP and has reaffirmed the facts stated in the complaint in support of her case, the complainant has filed her affidavit in evidence and on behalf of the OP laboratory Dr Vandana Lal, Executive Director of the OP laboratory has filed the affidavit in evidence Both parties have also filed written arguments.

We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of both parties, the documents placed on record, pleadings and evidence of the parties and the relevant provisions of law and citations produced and relied upon on behalf of the parties.

The basic facts in the present complaint are not disputed.

Admittedly, on the advise dated 16/5/2011 of Dr Neeru Gera of Max Healthcare the complaint got her blood test done at OP lab, Kailash Colony, New Delhi on 17/5/2011. Some of the results as per testing report given by OP laboratory regarding urea, creatunine serum, alkaline phosphate and phosphorus serum were far beyond normal range, as reflected below:

S.No. Investigation Actual Results Range . Urea 189mg/dL (17.00-43.00)

ii. Creatunine Serum 8.39 mg/dL (051-0.95)

iii. Alkaline Phosphate 144UL (30.00-120.00)

iv. Phosphorus Serum 13.20mg/dL (2.80-4.00)

The complainant got some tests on the advice of medical expert done from Max Healthcare Super Specialty Hospital 1, Press Enclave Road Saket, New Delhi and as per the second report all the results were normal. Thereafter, the complainant took up the matter with the OP laboratory and got issued legal notice dated 26.8.2011 also which was replied by the OP laboratory. Admittedly, the OP laboratory requested the complainant for carrying out the tests at its laboratory to ascertain the diagnosis of problem to the complainant, which request was not acceded to by the complainant alleging loss of faith in the OP laboratory and instead the complainant got the further tests done, from two other independent laboratories namely Dr Dangs Lab and Religare SRL Diagnostic (Shivam Care Centre) according to which reports