Issuance Of Faulty Test Result From Accredited Medical Laboratory Not Cheating If There Was No 'Intention To Deceive': Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. 

While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. 

"To bring home the offence of cheating, it must be shown that, at the time of representation being made, it was not only false, but that the person who made such false representation, knew that it was false and with that knowledge, the accused made such representation and thereby induced the party deceived, to deliver the property."

The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.

"To constitute cheating, the concept of deception must exist from the very start of the transaction. In order to hold a person guilty of cheating, the intention of a person must be dishonest and there must be mens rea. It has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at time of making a promise. Such intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made, knowingly, or without belief in its truth or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false."

The Judge was considering a petition filed by three employees of Anderson Diagnostics and Labs seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them before the Judicial First Class Magistrate. 

They were accused of fraudulently collecting blood samples of the de facto complainant and his wife and issuing a faulty result thereafter. It is alleged that when the de facto complainant questioned them, one of the accused criminally intimidated him.  

Advocate Rajesh P. Nair appearing for the petitioners argued that the doctor who was treating the de facto complainant and his wife for infertility referred them for a blood test. The 2nd accused collected the blood sample and sent it for testing to their Chennai Lab.

The counsel argued that out of the five test results, one was found to be reactive to Hepatitis B and this was duly informed to the de facto complainant. So the de facto complainant sent it to another lab for a confirmatory test as instructed by the petitioners and the doctor concerned. The results came out to be non-reactive from the second lab. 

Pursuant to this, the de facto complainant allegedly manhandled the petitioners and demanded compensation for the mistake in their test result.

It was argued that since he was not compensated, the de facto complainant lodged a police complaint after four weeks on the basis of which a crime was registered against them. 

It was argued that the offence of cheating would not be attracted in the case since there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners to deceive the de facto complainant. 

Public Prosecutor Seena Chandran appearing for the State opposed the petition alleging that the petitioners had no authority to run the lab or the qualification to collect blood samples. 

Advocates M. Rajendran Nair and M. Santhy representing the defacto complaint argued that the wrong result had caused him much embarrassment and unnecessary treatment and thus contended that the petitioners cheated him. 

The question before the Court was whether the issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will amount to cheating.

The Judge noted that a fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 IPC. A person who dishonestly induced any person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.

However, in this case, the de facto complainant had no case that the petitioners induced him to give blood for conducting the test and intentionally issued a faulty result in order to cheat him.

In fact, he himself admitted that he was asked to confirm the results before taking follow up treatment.

In that backdrop, the Judge noted that there was no fraudulent intention to deceive the defacto complaint at the time of collecting blood samples or at the time of issuing the test result.

Moreover, the Court emphasised that the petitioners had merely collected the blood and sent it to a lab for testing: 

"If at all a faulty result was issued after conducting blood test of the de facto complainant, the test was done by Anderson Lab at Chennai, and the employees, who only collected and sent the sample to Chennai, cannot be held liable for the test result. The Lab is not made an accused in the final report."

Relying on Chidambaram Chettiar v. Shanmugham [AIR 1938 Mad 129], the Court also noted that in the offence of cheating, there are two elements.- deception and dishonest inducement to do or omit to do something. Mere dishonesty is not a criminal offence. Moreover, to establish the offence of cheating, the complainant would have to show, not only that he was induced to do or omit to do a certain act, but that this induced omission on his part caused, or was likely to cause him, some harm or damage in body, mind, reputation or property.

However, in this case, the Single Bench observed that there was nothing to show that he had undertaken any treatment for Hepatitis-B on the basis of the faulty result. 

The Court also noted that no materials were available to find that the petitioners had collected the blood sample with an intention of cheating and subsequently, issued an incorrect test result with the mens rea to cheat him.

Regarding the alleged offence of criminal intimidation, it was found to be a matter to be inquired into by taking evidence. Similarly, the allegation that they were not licenced under the Kerala Municipal Act was also to be investigated. 

Therefore, for these offences, the petitioners were required to face trial. 

Since no trace of cheating could be found out in collecting the blood sample or in issuing the test result, the plea was allowed in part, quashing the proceedings against the petitioners under Section 420 of IPC.

Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

Click Here To Read/Download The Order