The complainant has filed the instant complaint stating that on 17-11-09 at 09:30pm he took his wife to the clinic of respondent No.1 who was suffering from abdominal pain to get the ultrasound of his wife. He further stated that respondent No.1 used to practice as Radiologist and ultrasound specialist while respondent No.2 is daughter of respondent No.1 had no concern what so ever with the clinic of respondent No.1 but wrongly her name was printed on the letter pad. He further stated that he asked the receptionist about the presence of respondent No.1 but he stated that he could inform him after consulting as to whether the doctor would see the patient or not and he went in and on his return he demanded Rs. 500/- a fee of ultrasound which he paid after getting receipt.
After half and hour they were sent inside the clinic and found respondent No.2 instead of respondent No.1. On the inquiry respondent No.2 did not disclose the absence of respondent No.1 and directed the patient to lay on bed and started ultrasound of the patient herself. He considered respondent No.2 as assistant of respondent No.1 and he was under impression that respondent No.2 would perform the initial proceedings for final report would be performed by respondent No.1 but surprisely respondent No.1 herself instructed the computer operator and handed over to them defective and faulty report by providing defective services and also committed forgery by putting signature of respondent No.1. The report prepared by respondent No.2 was defective, faulty and wrong and she handed over to them one slip for getting the laboratory tests by giving the impression that patient was in critical condition and this was done by respondent No.2 just to fleece Rs.2000/- for them, therefore, complainant brought his wife to home and due to serious condition of the patient. He went to Dr. Anjum Javad Sindhu on 18-11-09 and paid Rs.500/- and get abdominal scan who gave normal report regarding liver, gall blader and kidney and ultimately on 21-11-09 he sent a legal notice to the respondent No.2 and other notice on 11-12-09 to the respondent No.1 when he returned from abroad but they did not submit any reply. He claimed return of Rs.500/- and also Rs.100000/- as damages for providing of defective services.
2. The respondents submitted their written reply where they raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, malafide, cause of action, limitations, order 7 rule 11 CPC and special cost. On facts they stated that respondent No.2 did her MD and DMRD in radiology against Roll No.000001 serial No.000013 Registration No.06-szp-112 and obtained No.638 marks. On facts they denied the respondent No.2 has no concern with the clinic she was qualified in her field and other specialists used to rely on her report. They further stated that when complainant come on reception the respondent No.1 had gone to perform Hajj while respondent No.2 was performing ultrasound upon which complainant paid Rs.500 fee of ultrasound which was conducted and the report was properly prepared. According to factual position of patient they denied that respondent No.2 pressurized the complainant for getting the laboratory reports. Rest of paras were denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
3. On 11-01-10 the Court directed the complainant to produce his wife Rukhsan Ashfaq before the Medical Superintendent District Head Quarter Hospital Gujranwala who would constitute Medical Board comprising of two radiologists working in his hospital to conduct abdominal Ultrasound of patient especially Gall Bladder both Kidneys, liver and submitted report and the case was adjourned for 19-01-10. On 19-01-10 the report was received in the Court. On 22-02-10 on the objection and reservation of complainant regarding the report submitted by DHQ Hospital Gujranwala in this case constituted another board and patient was referred to Professor Doctor, Safdar Ali Malik (Tamgha-e-Imtiaz Civil), Head of Department of Radiology, Fatima Jinnah Medical College/ Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore who conducted the examination and submitted report in the Court and subsequently after the failure of pretrial reconciliation proceedings the complainant was directed to produce the evidence. Both the parties produced the evidence in their support.
4. The complainant appeared as PW1 and reiterated the same facts as mentioned in his complaint.
He produced receipt of fee Rs.500/- as Exh."P1", report issued by respondent No.2 as Exh."P2", receipt of laboratory tests as Exh."P3", laboratory receipt as Exh."P4", report of Faraz Lab as Exh."P5", receipt of fee as Exh."P6", report of Dr. Anjum Sindhu as Exh."P7", legal Notice as Exh."P8"&"P10", receipt of post office as Exh."P9"&"P11", report Hospital as Exh."P12", report of Dr. Saddiqi as Exh."P13" & report of Professor Dr. Safdar Malik as Exh."P14". Similarly Rukhsana Ashfaq appeared as PW2 who also supported the version of complainant and complainant closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand respondent No.2 appeared as RW1 and denied the allegation of complainant and produced copy of certificates as Exh."R1" to Exh. "R6" and copies of ultrasounds reports as mark "A" to mark "E".
6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
7. The pivotal point in this case revolves around the report of respondent No.2. In this case there is no value of oral evidence two different reports were obtained by the Court from different doctors and last report obtained from Professor Doctor, Safdar Ali Malik (Tamgha-e-Imtiaz Civil), Head of Department of Radiology, Fatima Jinnah Medical College/ Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Lahore. When the report of ultrasound Exh. "P2" issued by respondent No.2 is placed in juxtaposition with report Exh. "P14" of Professor Doctor, Safdar Ali Malik who is known specialist and authority on ultrasound it is clear that there is a minor discrepancies in both, therefore, in these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that respondent has not committed any fault by issuance the report because the complainant himself appeared as PW1 and he could easily abstain themselves from the getting of report from respondent No.2 who is admittedly a woman and not a man. It cannot be believable being literate person, he could not distinguish Mr. Rashid Khokhar from respondent No.2. Moreover, he has waived his right by surrendering the patient before the respondent No.2.
8. In view of what has been discussed above the complainant of the complaint is miserably failed to prove his case against the respondents regarding providing of defective services, resultantly the complaint being devoid of substance is therefore, dismissed.