VIJAYAN Vs. SAM SAHAYADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 22.2.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, 'State Commission ') in FA no.439 of 2010 confirming the order dated 28.1.2010, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagercoil (for short, 'District Forum ').

(2.) BRIEF facts are that petitioner/complainant had gone to the hospital of the respondent/opposite party on 23.11.2006, since he was having fever and vomiting. He was admitted, as inpatient and respondent conducted many tests, including the blood test. The blood test revealed "HIV positive ", whereas report received from Vivek Laboratory revealed as "HIV negative ". After the report, respondent against the medical ethics, called petitioner 's wife, as well as father-in-law and informed them, as if, the petitioner was suffering from HIV and even advising them to go for divorce, as well as to prefer police complaint. Because of this advice, petitioner 's wife as well as father-in-law left the hospital thereby respondent has committed deficiency in service and has shattered the family life of the petitioner also. The subsequent report also revealed, that petitioner is not suffering from any HIV. Thus, by the above conduct of the respondent, petitioner suffered mental agony, physical suffering, which cannot be measured in terms of money. However, petitioner restrict his claim for compensation to Rs.10 lakhs.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while under the treatment of the respondent, petitioner had to face family problems, which was based on the report testing the petitioner as HIV positive from the respondent 's laboratory. Moreover, if respondent has not informed the petitioner 's family that petitioner was suffering from HIV infection, then there was no possibility of them coming to know of the same. This disclosure by the respondent to them, amounted to dereliction of duty and deficiency in service. IT is also contended that if obtaining of consent was mandatory, the non-pleading of the same would not absolve the respondent from establishing that proper consent had been obtained from the petitioner for conducting the HIV test. Impugned order, under these circumstances, liable to be set aside.