STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH Date of institution : 05.01.2023 Date of Reserve : 04.02.2025 Date of Decision : 20.02.2025 Dr.G.B.Singh, PMC 28295, MD Radio Diagnosis Consultant, Radiologist, Paul Diagnostic Centre SCO No.20-21, Bhagwati Market (Jolly Market) near Bus Stand Morinda.

…….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1. Kuldeep Singh son of Amar Singh, resident of near Khera Morinda, District Runagar.

…….Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. Dr.Vikas Mittal, DNB (Radio Diagnosis) Ex-PGI Chandigarh Consultant, Radiologist, PMC No.32016, Mittal Diagnostic and Scan Centrem C-3/4 Naseeb Complex, Adjoining OBC Bank, near Bust Stand, Morinda.

…….Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar in CC No.26 of 2021.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present :-

F or the appellant : Sh.Krishan Kanha, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Sh.Kuldeep Singh, in person For respondent No.2 : None SIMARJOT KAUR, MEMBER This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short ‘The Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (in short ‘the District Commission’) whereby the Complaint of the Complainant had been allowed.

2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as had been arrayed before the District Commission.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the Complainant before the District Commission are that the Complainant was suffering from pain in abdomen and urology problem. He went to Civil Hospital, Morinda and was thoroughly checked by Dr.Sanjay. On advice of Dr.Sanjay he had undergone the USG whole abdomen from the Paul Diagnostic Center i.e. OP No.1 on 03.06.2019. On the basis of the report, OP No.1 had informed to the Complainant that he had Kidney Stone measuring 5.4 mm and advised to him for PSA test for look for sign of prostate cancer. On the instruction of doctor, the Complainant got done the abdomen test from the OP No.1 and he had availed service for consideration from the OP. Thereafter, he had got conducted the same test from another laboratory i.e. OP No.2 on 04.06.2019. It was reported that there was no abnormality/stone in the kidney/abdomen of the Complainant as per the report of OP No.2. It appeared that OP No.1 had given wrong report due to which the Complainant had suffered mental tension. OP No.1 had committed medical negligence. Thus, alleging ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of OPs, the Complainant had filed the Complaint and sought directions to refund the fee of the test and to impose the penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.8,00,000/- towards ‘unfair trade practice’

4. Upon issuance of notice OP No.1 had appeared and filed its written reply by raising certain preliminary objections that the Complaint was not maintainable, that the Complainant had no cause of action and locus standi to file the Complaint. The Complainant had not approached the District Commission with clean hands. On merits also, it was averred that the Complainant had got done USG from OP No.1 on 03.06.2019 and allegedly from OP No.2 on 04.06.2019. After the second USG the Complainant was silent for a period of approximately two years before filing the Complaint. In fact the Complaint had been filed just to pressurize the OP No.1 to extract money illegally. It was further submitted in the written reply that as per the USG whole abdominal on 03.09.2019, there was Renal Calculus measuring about 5.