- (1.) THOUGH the Lower Forum rejected the complainant s case that there was negligencce and deficiency in service in the treatment of the complainant by the Opposite Parties, however, the Lower Forum held that the failure to provide the film of scan would amount to deficiency in service. The doctor who took the scan has been examined as a witness by the opposite parties. The doctor is examined as R.W. 1. He was examined on commission and he has stated that he had taken the scan, but as the camera attached to the machine was not functioning on that date, they could not furnish a copy of the film to the complainant. He has further stated that the picture as displayed on the monitor was seen by him. The display was in two dimensions. According to him, the scan film has to be scanned through the X -ray film instrument. He has further stated that it is only the doctor or the sonologist who can see the film and interpret the film and read the impressions therein. He further speaks to the effect that because of there was no film it could not be provided to the complainant and so the complainant was charged only Rs. 325 and not the sum of Rs. 350 as usually done and the concession of Rs. 25 was on account of the fact that the film was not given to the complainant. Therefore, his evidence on record is to the effect that the scanned film could not be furnished to the complainant because the camera fitted in the machine was not working as a result of which the complainant was also given a concession. Therefore, from the materials produced by the opposite parties, it is clear that the camera fitted in the scanning machine did not function and, therefore, the film could not be given to the complainant. In fact, neither in the complaint nor in any of the notices the complainant has mentioned that she demanded the film to be handed over to her and it was refused. This would only emphasize the fact that she was not given the film for the reason explained by the opposite parties and it was why she kept quiet. It is of course necessary that in every hospital when patients come for treatment of ailments, it is necessary that investigation reports are properly maintained by them. It is available in the evidence adduced by the opposite parties that the defect was later rectified and the camera was repaired. Whether it can be called an act of deficiency is to be determined now. The lower Forum has accepted the complainant s case with regard to the treatment. It is to be pointed out that the grievance of the complainant is that had the film been provided to her, the doctors she consulted would have been in a better position to know the real nature of her ailment and adopt the necessary course of treatment. In fact Dr. Natarajan who took the scan would say that as the film was not available, he from the monitor noted the features and prepared the report. No doubt, if the film had been made available the doctor, while consulted, would be in a position to see the film and satisfy himself about the condition. At the same time it has to be pointed out that the mere absence of the film will not handicap the doctor. The complainant has consulted many doctors. She had subsequently taken a scan which she has been directed to do. It is not her case that the report prepared by the doctor on the basis of what he saw on the monitor was not accepted by any doctor, or that they entertained any doubt about the impressions he had noted in that record. Therefore, in this case, we cannot say that the failure to provide the film had in any manner placed the complainant in a disadvantageous position or affected proper diagnosis of her ailment. She was diagnosed to be suffering from pelvic inflammation (PIV infection). This was also found by Jimper where she was operated upon for removal of abscess in the pelvis. Therefore, the failure to provide film had not handicapped her diagnosis. Therefore, there is no nexus as such between the act of the opposite parties in not providing the film with the ultimate complication with which the complainant suffered. Therefore, in that context, it has to be stated that there is no deficiency in service. Whenever sophisticated machines are used in hospitals, one has to expect such breakdowns in the system. Failure of the camera to function cannot be or is attributable to any direct act of carelessness or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is neither on account of the inherent defect in the machinery or because of its frequent user or because of any defect in its components or fluctuation of energy the camera had failed. They have taken steps to rectify it and they have ultimately rectified the defect. Therefore, merely because the camera did not function, we cannot brand the said act as an act of deficiency nor it can be brought under the definition of imperfection. It is an unexpected event which had taken place. The hospital cannot be found fault with if some equipment in the hospital suddenly does not function. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not accept the verdict of the lower Forum. Consequently we hold that the order passed by the lower Forum has to be set aside.
(2.) IN the result, this appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances, without costs. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed in toto, in the circumstances without costs.;