SUSHEEL KUMAR Vs. VIRENDRA MAHLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 12.9.2002 the petitioner with complaint of pain in abdomen approached the respondents. Operation for appendix was performed by Dr. G.L. Rathi and respondent No. 1. Since the pain continued to persist the petitioner again approached the respondents on 2.12.2002 on which blood was taken for testing. In the report dated 3.12.2002 (copy at page 24) given by the respondent the petitioner was found to be HIV - Positive. It was stated that on suspicion about this diagnosis the petitioner went to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where the doctors refused investigations. Petitioner thereafter went to PBM Hospital, Bikaner where he met the same fate. Then the petitioner went to Marudar Hospital, Jaipur where investigations were repeated and the petitioner was found to be HIV - Negative. Petitioner alleged that on account of wrong report of HIV-Positive by the respondents he suffered physical and mental agony. On that account he claimed certain amount of compensation by filing complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum on contest allowed the complaint awarding Rs. 2 lakh as compensation by the order dated 2.1.2004. Dissatisfied with this order, the respondents filed appeal which was allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 9.1.2007. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.

(2.) Petitioner has filed copies of the reports dated 3.12.2002, dated 19.12.2003 of Getwell Poly Clinic and Hospital (at page 25) and dated 10.12.2003 of Marudar Hospital (at page 26). As may be seen from the report dated 3.12.2002 the petitioner was found to be HIV - Positive through the screening test which was done from HIV Niwa Kit of Cadila and petitioner was advised to co-relate the result by Western Blot Technique. Relevant part of the above report dated 19.12.2003 reads thus :

(3.) In aforesaid report dated 10.12.2003 which is prior to the said report of Gatewell Poly Clinic & Hospital the petitioner was found to be HIV-Negative. In the order under challenge the State Commission has quoted two paras from Harison's Book of Principles of Internal Medicines. Combined reading of these paras would show that the standard screening test for HIV infection is the ELISA which is an extremely good screening test with a sensitivity of 99.58%; Commercial use of EIA kit by most of the diagnostic laboratories is not optimal with regard to specificity and, therefore, it must be confirmed with a more specific assay. It is not the case of petitioner that test through Western Blot Technique was got done by him after 3.12.2002. Considering the contents extracted above the aforesaid report dated 19.12.2003 does not help the petitioner. To be noted that in aforementioned report dated 10.12.2003 the basis for reaching the conclusion in regard to petitioner being HIV-Negative has not been disclosed. In this backdrop, we do not find any merit in the contention advanced by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Advocate about respondent being deficient in service for giving the wrong report. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.