Diagnostic Centre Not Liable For Unforeseen Circumstances Due To Genuine Test Results; Kerala State Commission Dismisses Complaint

Brief Facts:

The complaint relates to the issuance of a laboratory report by Al Shafa Diagnostic Centre (“Diagnostic Centre”) indicating that Mr Shaji David (“Complainant”) had tested positive for the TPHA (ELISA) test – a test to determine whether someone is suffering from Syphilis, which is a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD). This result was pivotal for the Complainant as he required it for visa stamping to secure employment in Kuwait.

According to the Complainant, upon receiving the positive test result, his hopes of working in Kuwait were shattered, and his family was deeply disturbed. The report labelled him as unfit to get his visa stamped, causing significant mental distress to him and his loved ones. However, the Complainant vehemently contested the accuracy of the report, claiming that the result was entirely false. To substantiate his claim, the Complainant disclosed that he had later undergone the same TPHA test at the Department of Microbiology under the Directorate of Medical College, Trivandrum. The subsequent report dated 03.10.2014 revealed that the Complainant tested non-reactive to TPHA, contradicting the earlier result.

Consequently, the Complainant filed a complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (“State Commission”) invoking Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Diagnostic Centre, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-. The Diagnostic Centre conceded that the complainant had indeed undergone the TPHA test at their facility, and the result obtained was positive. The Diagnostic Centre maintained that they conducted the test using high-quality testing kits as per the instructions of the Kuwait Embassy, which demanded a negative result for visa processing. The Diagnostic Centre asserted that they were not at fault in providing the result, and if the complainant had received a negative result from another laboratory on 02.10.2014, he could have availed treatment within a span of six months. Thus, they argued that the complaint lacked merit and should be dismissed.

Observations of the Commission:

Upon admission of the complaint, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted hearings and reviewed all the relevant evidence. The State Commission noted that the complainant's primary contention rested on proving that the initial report provided by the Diagnostic Centre was erroneous. The burden of proof lays with the complainant to demonstrate the falsity of the report. In this regard, the complainant had relied on the subsequent test results from a different laboratory, which indicated a negative TPHA result. However, the State Commission observed that the complainant had delayed undergoing this subsequent test for an extended period, which was approximately six months after the initial test.

The delay in getting the second test raised doubts about the complainant's assertion that the initial report was incorrect. If the complainant was confident that he had not engaged in any risky behaviour that could lead to a sexually transmitted disease, the State Commission expected him to seek immediate retesting at another laboratory upon receiving the initial report. The lack of such prompt action weakened the complainant's case.

Furthermore, the testimony of the complainant's friend was presented to demonstrate the mental anguish suffered by the complainant and the subsequent fallout with his family due to the positive result. However, the State Commission took note of the absence of concrete evidence indicating that the complainant had undertaken genuine efforts to challenge the initial report at the earliest opportunity. On the other hand, the Diagnostic Centre's manager provided comprehensive evidence supporting the accuracy of the test conducted. The State Commission found no substantial reason to suspect the credibility of the testimony offered by the manager concerning the correctness of the test.

In light of these considerations, the State Commission concluded that the complainant had failed to substantiate his claim that the initial report was incorrect. Moreover, the State Commission noted that the complainant had filed the complaint without sufficient bonafides, causing undue hardship to the Diagnostic Centre. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed and the complainant was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Diagnostic Centre.

Case: Shaji David vs Shafa Diagnostic Centre

Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/15/16

Advocate for the Complainant: C.P. Bhadra Kumar & Sreegopal N.S

Advocate for the Respondent: Vettoor S. Prakash

Click Here To Read/Download Order