PUROHIT CHARITABLE LABORATORY Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals bearing No.874/97 Purohit Charitable Laboratory V/s. Vijay Kumar, and bearing No.875/97 filed by Purohit Charitable Laboratory V/s. Smt. Madhu, are directed against two identical orders dated 10.3.1997 passed by the District Forum, Sriganganagar. In both these cases the facts are that Smt. Madhu wanted to have a VDRL test of her blood from the appellant laboratory as she was pregnant. It is alleged that she submitted her sample blood on 22.7.1996 by paying a fee of Rs.50/-. Her blood was tested and the report given by the appellant about it was positive. The same test was got conducted by her husband Vijay Kumar and that also was found positive by the appellant laboratory. However they became suspicious and got the sample retested by another laboratory i. e. Tendon Dignostics and they have reported the sample after test as negative for VDRL. Then both of them again gave their blood samples to the appellant Charitable Trust for VDRL test and the report of blood test given by them this time was negative for VDRL.

(2.) It has been alleged that the earlier two tests were conducted by them negligently and they have given a positive report about their blood having VDRL in it and, therefore, the learned District Forum has found the appellant laboratory negligent and in deciding both these cases it has awarded Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to each of the complainants and it has further ordered that the amount spent by the complainants in both these appeals amounting to Rs.200/- each be refunded to them and each of them has also been awarded a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony also. Thus in all a repayment of Rs.5,700/- have been ordered in favour of Smt. Madhu and Shri Vijay Kumar separately and it is against these two orders that these two appeals have been filed. When the Commission was not functioning on the judicial side both these complainants wanted to proceed against the appellant Trust under Sec.27 of the Act and hence they filed these two revisions to stay the orders passed by the District Forum in both these proceedings on 16.8.1997.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Zakir Husain appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Tantia for the respondents. Mr. Zakir Husain has submitted that in such cases slight amount of error is possible in the blood test and, therefore, it should not be treated as a case of negligence. In this respect he has placed reliance on the decision of Bihar State Commission in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Mishra V/s. Dr. Akhauri S. Sinha,1996 2 CPJ 298. In this case the Hon'ble State Commission of Patna has held that there may be error in the report regarding the blood group of a person without there being any negligence on the part of the doctor. A mistake in the report in this respect is not necessarily a case of negligent report. We are not ready to travel to that extent as has been done by the Hon'ble Bihar State Consumer Commission, that if blood group is reported wrongly that is not a case of negligence because if wrong report is given about a blood group it can create lot of problems and complications in treatment and may sometimes prove fatal. Thus we are unable to wholly subscribe to the view expressed by the Hon'ble Bihar State Consumer Protection Commission.