CONSUMER INTERESTS PROTECTION AND REASEARCH ASSOCIATION Vs. APOLLO GLKENEAGLES PET-CT CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint is filed through the Consumer Council, Consumer Interest Protection and Research Association (CIPRA) Hyderabad seeking direction against the opposite parties, Apollo Gleneagles and five others to pay Rs. 10 lakh towards medical expenditure, Rs. 12 lakh for loss of income and Rs. 2 lakh towards compensation for mental agony, a total amount of Rs. 24 lakh with interest thereon.

(2.) THE averments of the complaint are that the complainant had undergone whole body PET -CT scan on 23.7.2007 by making payment of Rs. 27,000 and Rs. 21,500 to the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 issued report stating that the brain position i.e., both cerebral, hemisphere, basal ganglia, verticular system, posterior fossa structure and bony calvaniam are normal. It was reported that every organ of the complainant was normal. On 27.10.2007 the complainant had undergone for whole body PET -CT scan for the second time and this time the CT findings did not reveal brain position. The scan was taken from the neck portion omitting the brain of the complainant. The health condition of the complainant had begun to deteriorate with the complaints of pain in head and back, abdomen and loss of sight. On 1.11.2007 the complainant approached Yashoda Hospital where he had undergone MRI of brain without and with contrast and the report revealed that the complainant was suffering from brain cancer since a long time and he needed severe precautions.

(3.) THE first report issued by the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5 is a wrong report. The complainant was suffering from cancer long prior to the date of first report issued by the opposite parties. The second report omitted the brain portion of the complainant. The complainant had spent Rs. 10 lakh for his treatment. The complainant has got issued notice through the consumer information centre to the opposite parties for settlement of the dispute. The process of counselling was not successful as the opposite parties denied any negligence on their part. Hence, the complaint.