Consumer court fines `Dr Dolittle’ Rs 4000

Mathew, who was selected by the Abu Zaid Trading and Contracting Co for the post of a sales executive, had to undergo the test and had approached Dr Shah. All the medical examinations were gone through on March 3, 1997 where Mathew paid the fees of Rs 1000. However, when he went to collect the report on March 4, it was refused as the doctor said he had failed the medical test since he had tested HIV positive. Even though Mathew asked for the report, it was not given to him.

A shocked Mathew then had himself tested again with the P D Hinduja Natinoal Hospital and Medical Research where he tested HIV negative. Arguing on his behalf, Premlal stated that the complainant was forced to attend the medical test again as the competency of the doctor was doubtful and his equipments were outdated.

Following repeated requests by Mathew, the doctor then referred him to the Bio-Technical Diagnostic requesting them to give their findings. Even this time, the tests were negative. However, the complainant said that the doctor refused to accept the finding of the polyclinic.

Were he to accept the finding, Premlal argued, the future of the complainant would not have been spoilt. Moreover, he should have accepted the report when the clinic referred to was of his own choice. Another test with the J J Hospital too proved that Mathew was HIV negative. But as the doctor refused to accept the findings, the complainant lost his employment where he would have been paid a monthly salary of Rs 25,000 approximately.

Mathew then claimed a compensation of Rs six lakh from the doctor which was later reduced to Rs two lakh as he got another job, though at a reduced salary of Rs 15,000.

Dr Shah on his part argued that the person who had filed the complaint was not Mathew, who is in Saudi Arabia, but his constituent attorney who is not a consumer according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He argued that there were no documents to support the complaint and that the complaint was false, fabricated, vague and unspecific.

The court though, found the doctor guilty in the matter and deficient in service. They then directed the doctor to refund the Rs 1000 fees taken from Mathew, and give Rs 2000 as compensation and Rs 1000 as costs for the complainant within two months of receipt of the judgement.