Date of filing: 24.01.2023 Date of order: 04.04.2024 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 192 OF 2023 IN CONSUMER CASE NO.: 193 OF 2022 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION: AURANGABAD Rafiq Saiyyad Lal …Appellant Age:56 yrs Occu: Businees (In Person)

R/0 Himayatnagar,Plot No.14, Aaref Colony, Aurangabad VERSUS Nivrutti Ghodbarao Vanole ...Respondent Age: 67 yrs Occu. Doctor ( Adv. R.P. Kambale)

R/o Sadguru Bhavan, Vidyut Colony, Near Alamgir Masjjid, Begampura, Aurangabad CORAM: Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Dr. Nisha Amol Chavan, Hon’ble Member.

Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

J U D G M E N T

(Delivered on 04/04/2024)

Per Milind Sahebrao Sonawane Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal taking an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad ( the ‘ District Commission’

for short) in Consumer Complaint No.193/2022

2. The facts relevant to this appeal are that, on 20.06.2020 the appellant went to test his blood to one Bharat Lab, Jubily Park Aurangabad. There his blood was taken thrice and therefore he felt utter giddiness. The employee of the lab gave him a glass of water. Thereafter he called his son who took him to Dr.Bagale. He narrated the incident to him. Dr.Bagale told him that there was no need to take the blood thrice and because of that he felt giddiness. He then referred him to Jindani Lab. He got suspicion of the Bharat Lab. On inquiry it is revealed to him that the said lab is not being operated by duly qualified doctor. The premises of the lab is rented one but the owner of the premises told him that he rented the it to one Ammer Pathan, but he has no concern about the Doctor working over there. There was no display board in the lab showing the name and professional qualification of the Doctor. The appellant further alleged that, the blood testing report was given with digital signature under the pretext of the Corona Wave. There was no pathological instrument found to him in the laboratory. The report which was given to him ‘greatly’ varies with the one of Jindani Lab. Therefore he filed the above referred Consumer Complaint before the District Commission. Wherein he filed reports of both labs, bill of Jindani Lab, prescription of Dr.Bagale etc.

3. The appellant has not filed the copy of the written version filed by the respondent along with the appeal compilation. The respondent has also not filed it either. However, the defence of the respondent can be collected from the impugned judgment and his written argument. The respondent contended that, one Aamir Khan Salman Khan Pathan is the Owner/ Director of the Lab. The lab was started by him in June 2020. He was working in the said lab as consulting pathologist. Aamir Khan himself is the technician and duly qualified having the degree of M.Sc. DAMLT. He himself is having the degree of MBBS and Diploma in Clinical Pathology. The said Aamir Khan had taken the lab premises on rent. There was some dispute with the owner of the premises. Both of them have made complaints against each other. It is only out of those disputes the present complaint has been made by the appellant. The blood report given to the appellant was correct. The digital signature was impressed on it because of the restriction of the outbreak of the Corona Virus infection. He has not given any deficient service to the appellant. So as to support his above contentions he has produced before the District Commission, Certificates of his professional qualifications and Registration Certificate.

4. The District Commission on appreciating the evidence produced by both sides and after hearing the appellant in person and Advocate of the respondent came to a conclusion that the respondent possessed the prescribed professional qualifications and there has been no deficiency in service committed by him and dismissed the Consumer Complaint of the appellant. Being aggri