M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties and the complainant, are the appellants in OP.No.104/2009 and 110/2009, respectively.
(2.) The parties are referred in this appeal, as arrayed in OP.No.215/2001.
(3.) The complainant who is a doctor, doing business in the cine field, having some problem viz. back pain, consulted a doctor by name Murthy, who advised the complainant to go for tests. On 9.2.2001, when the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, he conducted blood test and urine test, for which the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1340/-. Being a known laboratory, it was expected, the opposite parties should have performed their duty diligently, properly, testing the samples, and giving precise and accurate result. On the same day, the complainant received the test result, which disclosed Parathormone count was almost 4 times, than the normal, showing the reading 236 pg/ml of blood, which is an indication of hyper Calcaemia or Hyperparathyroidism, and the cause for such over production of parathormone are normally some cancer in some form or other. Because of this abnormal reading, he was shocked and recommended by his doctor a series of tests to localize the tumor, to find out other symptoms of the acute hyper parathyrodism, such as pepperpot-like skull appearance. All the test revealed, that there was no abnormality in any part of the body of the complainant. Because of this unnecessary shock and testing, the complainant had lost profit of RS.9 lakhs, he would have earned, if attended the office, for which the opposite parties should be held responsible.;