ORDER

Appeared at the time of arguments

For the Petitioner :        Mr. Avanish Kumar, Advocate

For the Respondent         :        Mr. Rishi Raj, Advocate

Pronounced on: 14^th February, 2023

ORDER

Dr. S.M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.       The Revision Petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner - Neetu Khemka (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant’) against the impugned Order dated 26.09.2016 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 86/2015, whereby the Appeal filed by the Opposite Parties was allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 146/2008 was set aside and the Complaint was dismissed.

2.       The facts in brief are that on 25.08.2007, for the symptoms of jaundice, the Petitioner/Complainant got tested his blood for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) at Dr. Lal Path Labs Pvt. Ltd.- OP (for short Lal Path). The test report for ANTI HCV IgM was received on 29.08.2007, showed Hepatitis C as ‘Reactive’, the index value being 0.68 as against the permissible value of 0.34.  It was shock to the Complainant and her family members.  For second opinion to clear the doubts the Complainant, on the same day went to Dr. Parveen Garg, at Garg Diagnostic Centre, Sirsa and got herself tested again. On 02.09.2007, the test report was ‘Negative’. Thereafter, being not satisfied  the Complainant again, for the 3^rd  time got tested HCV at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, Delhi  on 03.09.2007 and the  report on next date  showed ‘Non-Reactive’. The Complainant alleged that due to the wrong report issued by OP, she went through mental harassment and trauma, also spent huge amount of money for getting the treatment, transportation, tests etc. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Sirsa.

3.       The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, otherwise with interest @10% per annum, from the date of blood test dated 25.08.2007, till payment.

4.       Being aggrieved, the OP filed the First Appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum with the following observation:

“17.    In view of the report of Indraprastha Apollo Hospitals, Delhi and the medical literature, there is nothing on the record to suggest that there was any negligence in giving report by the opposite parties. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and convincing evidence it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties-appellants.

18.     Hence, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

…….”

5.       Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

6.       Heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the material on record inter alia the orders of both the fora below.

7.       We gave our thoughtful consideration to the arguments. The main grouse of the Complainant is that the report issued by the OP was not correct, therefore the Complainant and her family suffered financial loss, mental pain and agony.

8.       The OP laboratory has a policy that ‘any patient who is not satisfied or alarmed by the test report, is free to speak to Customer Care Manager or the Doctor concerned to get his doubts cleared’. It is also printed on the test report, which reads as under:

"If the result(s) of the test(s) is alarming or unexpected, the patient is advised to contact the Laboratory immediately for possible remedial advice".

9.       Adverting to the merit in the instant case, the Complainant tested his blood in Indraprastha Apollo Hospital which showed Hepatitis C ‘non-reactive’.  The report al