MEENAKSHI Vs. MANJUNATHA PATHOLOGY LABORATORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the appellant/complainant challenging the order dated 26. 9. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mandya, in Complaint No. 35/2007, by which the District Forum has dismissed her complaint.

(2.) THE case of the complainant before the District Forum was that during her pregnancy she was referred by one Dr. Krishnamurthy to the Hospital of respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 (for short, "o. P. Hospital") for a blood test. The O. P. Hospital after conducting the blood test opined that the complainant was HIV positive. The complainant was shocked to know this. However, with a view to confirm the opinion given by the O. P. Hospital, the complainant approached the Government Hospital at Channarayapatna and got her blood tested again. The Doctor in the said Government Hospital after conducting necessary tests certified that the complainant was not a victim of HIV by giving a report as "non-reactive". Thereafter, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging "deficiency in Service" on the part of the O. P. Hospital. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the O. P. Hospital has conducted the Tests in accordance with the prescribed procedure, there is no "deficienccy in service" on the part of the O. P. Hospital. This order is under challenge by the complainant in this appeal.

(3.) FROM the evidence it is seen that the complainant was referred for a blood test by one Dr. Krishnamurthy to the O. P. Hospital. The O. P. hospital conducted blood test called "elisa Test" and opined that the complainant is HIV positive. The complainant being a pregnant lady was shocked to know this. Ultimately, she went to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna and got her blood tested once again. In the Government Hospital the Doctor who conducted the Test opined that the complainant is HIV Negative. In proof of this contention, the complainant examined R. W. 2, who in her evidence has deposed that the complainant is not HIV Positive. From the evidence of R. W. 2 it is clear that the opinion furnished by the O. P. Hospital is wrong. Therefore, in our view, there is "deficiency in Service" on the part of the O. P. Hospital.