DIAGNOSTIC CLINICAL LABORATORY Vs. BHAGWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the District Forum, whereby the complaint of the complainant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 15,000/ - (Rupees fifteen thousand) awarded for medical negligence of the doctor.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint on 22.4.2002 that he is literate unemployed and social youth. He has been donating blood to the needy persons at occasions. On 2.4.2002, the daughter -in -law of Sh. Dharam Singh, the relative of the complainant, was in need of blood. The complainant offered to donate blood. He went to City Hospital, Haldwani where Dr. J.S. Bhandari referred the complainant to Dr. H.S. Chadha, Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory for examination of the blood. The blood was examined by the Diagnostic Clinical Laboratory and it was reported to be unfit for donation. It was written in the examination report that the complainant was suffering from Australia -antigen (H.B. Antigen) disease. Looking the report, the complainant went in mental agony and depresssion that he is suffering from such a dangerous disease. The friends of the complainant advised him to get him re -examined and on 3.4.2002, they took the complainant to a renowed doctor, Dr. N.K. Pandey of Haldwani who referred the complainant to R.L. Memorial Pathology Centre, Haldwani for re -examination where the complainant was found not suffering from any such disease as was declared by the opposite party. Again when the complainant went to the opposite party, Dr. H.S. Chadha told that, that report is incorrect and he still persisted that the complainant is suffering from the said disease. It is alleged that the complainant has spent about Rs. 2,500/ - (Rupees two thousand five hundred). He claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - (Rupees fifty thousand) as compensation and cost of litigation.

(3.) THE opposite party (hereinafter called the appellant) filed the written statement and admitted that he has conducted the test and gave the report of Australia -antigen being positive. The person whose blood was tested was advised to consult Dr. J.S. Bhandari by whom he was referred for test, to get the report given by the opposite party confirmed by more sensitive test in view of technical limitations of pathological test. It is said that the person whose blood was examined was directed to undergo the confirmatory test and there is no question of any disappointment without confirmatory test. It is alleged that there was no deficiency in the service of the opposite party.