CHANDRASAGAR D. RAJPUT vs DINESH J.SHAH

THE complaint by husband and wife against the opposite party-Dr. Dinesh J. Shah is in respect of the false certificate issued in respect of VDRL, (Veneral Disease Research Laboratory) Test as "Positive" for "Titre 1.8". THE said result was typed in Red, in contrast with the other results and according to the complainant, this projected the complainant and his wife as having illicit intercourse with someone and suffering the veneral disease. THE salient facts of the complaint are that the complainant who is now a member of the judicial service, was an Advocate practising in the Courts of the District of Dhule and High Court and other Courts of Bombay and his marriage with complainant No. 2 Meenakshi was performed in the year 1990. In June, 1992, the wife was in the 7 months of her pregnancy and on 17.6.1992 complainant No. 1 had taken his wife to Dr. V.B. Sonanis, M.D. (BOM) D.G.O. (C.P.S.) of Dhulia, an eminent and leading Gynecologist and Obstetrician for periodical check up. Meenakshi was then referred to the opposite party on 18.6.1992 for antenatal laboratory examination. THE said certificate indicated VDRL as "Positive" for "Titre 1.8" which clearly meant that either of these spouses was suffering from veneral disease namely Syphilis etc. In order to confirm this, Meenakshi was subjected to another test in the laboratory of Dr. P.N. Patil at Jalgaon and the certificate issued by Dr. Patil clearly indicated that so far as the complainant No. 1 is concerned, VDRL test was Negative and so far as Meenakshi is concerned, it was non-specific - biological false positive. This certificate by Dr. Patil clearly indicated that the certificate issued by Dr. Shah was totally false. As a result of the first certificate dated 18.6.1992, serious differences arose between husband and wife and it is stated that husband drove away his wife Meenakshi. THE reconciliation was brought about by the brother-in-law i.e. brother of Meenakshi. According to the complainants, on account of false certificate, Dr. Sonanis prescribed Penicillin in heavy dose to cure the venereal disease. THE prescription had to be given for both husband and wife in order to prevent further spread of venereal disease. THE complainant then gave notice to Dr. Shah and claimed the compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and odd amount for the serious mental trauma suffered both by husband and wife.

DR. Shah in his written statement has contended that he had issued certificate wherein VDRL test was positive, but according to him such tests are preliminary tests subject to other confirmatory tests. He has relied on the medical literature which shows that VDRL tests are non-specific and that there are several other ailments connected with VDRL Positive : Lepromatous Leprosy, Heroin addiction, Lupus- erythematosus and occasionally Malaria are associated with such results. Depending on the medical literature, it is further contended that the first tests are essential for cleaning the investigation and that further confirmatory tests should be performed in order to establish that the patient suffers from venereal disease. The certificate dated 18.6.1992 was in respect of preliminary test and that the diagnosis by DR. Shah that it was VDRL Positive was not warranted. The Physician should drawn further confirmatory tests and should not have prescribed heavy doses of Penicillin aimed at preventing the spread of venereal disease. We find that the medical literature does support this story, but the certificate issued by Dr. Shah dated 18.6.1992 shows as VDRL test Positive for "Titre 1.8" and Dr. Sonanis relying on the certificate did find that either the husband or wife was suffering from venereal disease and accordingly, gave prescription. In the certificate issued by Dr. Shah there is not a slightest indication to show that the results should be treated as preliminary results subject toe confirmatory tests. It is well established from the certificate issued by Dr. Shah that even as Dr. Sonanis felt that the husband or wife suffered from venereal disease. The medical literature theoretically support the case of Dr. Shah but the fact remains that on his certificate dated 18.6.1992, there is no iota to show that the results were in the nature of preliminary results and that further confirmatory tests should be performed by both husband and wife. We feel that this is a serious deficiency on the part of Dr. Shah.

In the Hindu society or even for that purpose other communities, persons suffering from venereal diseases are looked down as persons who are given debauchery. The first certificate strikes the backbone of the status of the complainant. The subsequent certificates which are corrective in nature are taken by the society are certificates which are manoeuvred to retrieve their social reputation. Such stigmatized certificates are not easily forgotten by the society. The society readily believes that either of these spouses is given to extra marital sexual life and we believe that this is a serious attack on the reputation of the husband and wife. The medical literature may indicate that these certificates are liable to be confirmed by subsequent tests but Dr. Shah should have taken adequate care to show in his certificate that the result VDRL test Positive plus Titre 1.8 should not be taken as a conclusive result, but should be confirmed by subsequent medical test as required under the medical literature. We are therefore, unable to uphold the case of Dr. Shah that there was no error on his part or that he did not commit any deficiency in service.

ON receipt of the certificate both the husband and wife must have suspected the fidelity of each other and in that light there must have been social commotion in their sentiments and on their behalf. We believe that such social trauma should be adequately compensated by awarding the damages so as to intimate the society that neither of these spouses suffer from any VDRL disease. Looking to the status of husband and wife, we believe that cumulative damages of Rs. 50,000/-should serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, we pass the following order : ORDER "The opposite party-Dr. D. J. Shah shall pay Rs. ''50,000/- plus cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant within 2 months from the receipt of the order, failing which, the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall carry interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till actual payment."

Complaint disposed of.