LAWS(NCD)-2011-8-68

RAMESH GARG Vs. RAHUL

Decided On August 01, 2011
RAMESH GARG Appellant
V/S
RAHUL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, there is challenge to order dated 21.7.2006, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short 'State Commission').

(2.) Vide impugned order, State Commission, allowed the appeal of the respondent against order dated 13.9.2000, passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short 'District Forum'), which has dismissed the complaint of the respondent.

(3.) Brief facts relevant for the disposal of present revision petition are that, the son of the respondent was suffering from certain ailment and was undergoing treatment from Dr. T.K. Gupta, Gupta Hospital, Bilaspur. It is alleged that on 6.2.2008, the doctor asked the respondent to get certain tests of TLC/DLC done from the clinic of the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent approached the petitioner on the same date for getting the tests done, for which petitioner charged a fee of Rs. 250. It is also the case of the respondent that, in his report petitioner opined that respondent was suffering from Tuberculosis . On the basis of said report, Dr.T.K. Gupta, referred the respondent to get treatment from the Civil Hospital. There treatment for Tuberculosis of respondent was started. Even after getting the treatment from the said civil hospital, position of respondent/patient worsened. No improvement was seen in his condition and thereafter, he was got tested from Kamal Hospital, Karnal. The laboratory gave the report dated 2.4.1998. According to that report, respondent was suffering from Cancer. The Doctor advised that respondent be taken to Delhi for treatment. Respondent was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where certain tests were conducted by the Dr.Marwah at PGI and it was told that respondent was suffering from Cancer. Respondent remained admitted in the PGI for eight days. It is alleged that respondent has suffered due to the wrong report given by the petitioner. There is deficiency on the part of the petitioner. Thus respondent has sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of sufferings, pain and treatment, etc.