STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTAR PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/9/A/1417/2023 Tulika Agarwal PRESENT ADDRESS - Proprietor of MEDI Check Pathology Lab at Pratap Pura Agra,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NARENDR PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE- CHAMRAULI SHAMSHABAD ROAD AGRA U.PLUCKNOW,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

Tulika Agarwal FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NARENDR DATED: 18/11/2025

ORDER

RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW.

APPEAL NO. 1417 OF 2023 Dr. Tulika Agarwal, Proprietor of Medi Check Pathology Lab at Pratap Pura, Agra….

…..Appellant VERSUS Sri Narendra, Son of Ghanshyam, Resident of Village-Chamrauli, Shamshabad Road, Agra, Uttar Pradesh... …....Respondent BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MRS. SUDHA UPADHYAY, MEMBER For the Appellant: Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent: -

Dated : 18-11-2025

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, PRESIDENT

1. Under challenge in this appeal is impugned judgment and order dated 18-07-2023 passed by learned District Consumer Commission First, Agra in Complaint Case No. 164 of 2015; Narendra Vs Dr. Tulika Agrawal whereby the learned District Commission allowed the complaint filed by the respondent herein.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the complainant Narendra, the respondent herein got four tests conducted at Medi Check Pathology Lab which is being run by the appellant herein. The tests were Semen analysis, TLC, Blood Group and HIV for which the respondent had paid Rs. 650/- to the Medi Check Pathology on 21-03-2015. It is the case of respondent that he received report prepared by the Medi Check Pathology Lab, a copy of which was annexed with the original complaint. The respondent did not believe the report and requested for retest however, the appellant misbehaved with the respondent and he has made to run from there. It is stated by the appellant that the report is correct. Thereafter, the respondent got second test done by the Vision Pathology on 29-06-2015 and 30-06-2015 which gave report to the effect that HIV is negative and non-reactive. Thereafter the respondent again got his tests conducted at District Hospital, Agra on 13-08-2015 which again confirmed that the respondent’s report is HIV negative and non-reactive. His blood group was also shown as ‘A’. As a result of incorrect report given by the appellant, the respondent suffered mental stress/agony. His marriage could not be solemnized and his social reputation also got adversely affected. His business also was adversely affected because of such incorrect report. According to respondent, furnishing of incorrect report after receiving Rs. 650/- as fees thereof by the appellant amounts to deficiency in service, therefore, the respondent filed the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission.

3. The appellant appeared before the learned District Consumer Commission and filed written submission paper no. 25/01 to 25/05 dated 06-04-2017 whereby the appellant denied all the allegations. It was specifically denied by the appellant that any test as alleged by the respondent was conducted in his pathology lab on 21-03-2015. It was also denied that alleged test reports do not bear appellant’s signature. It was also stated by the appellant that only computerised bills are issued by the Medi Check Pathology Lab whereas the bill produced by the respondent is not computerized bill.

4. We have heard submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record.

5. It is pertinent to mention that though on 01-08-2025 Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel appeared and he stated that he would file vakalatnama within a week on behalf of respondent, however, no one appeared for the respondent on subsequent dates, therefore, this appeal is proposed to be disposed of on its own merits.

6. Havi