IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 09th day of October, 2020
Filed on 24. 11. 2017
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma. BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No. 313/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Smt. Meenakumari 1. Rajesh.B
W/oSuresh Babu Thaiparambil,
Kovilakam Near, Aryad Grama Panchayath
CMC-12, Marathorvattom.P.O Samskarika Nilayam
Cherthala-688 539 Opp. Jyothishalayam
(Adv. K.R. Ajikumar) Jylosyan. M.S.Rajan,
South Ariyad, Avalukkunnu.P.O Alappuzha
(Adv.V.S.Karthikeyan)
2. Karthikeyan
Chief Executive, CEO Officer Oriental Glob Marketing (p) Ltd Amrutham Stop point
Orience Global Marketing Naj Plaza, Arattuvazhy
Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA. (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
1. Complainant is having difficulties due to dry skin and her son Adhitiyan who is about 12 years of age is having learning disability. 2nd opposite party is diagnosing diseases using computer and marketing medicines. 1st opposite party is the marketing executive of the 2nd opposite party and it is offering treatment to the customers. 1st opposite party approach the complainant and inform that after fixing finger in the computer they can diagnosis diseases and can treat the same by medicines. Believe the words complainant had undergone treatment. 1st opposite party reached the house of complainant and made to put their fingers in the lap top and inform that the root cause is deficiency of calcium. As part of treatment a soap price at Rs.89/- was given to her and three bottles of super kid juice worth Rs. 940/- each was prescribed for her son. She was made to believe that on consuming the medicine they can get over the disease.
On 14/7/2017 she paid Rs.904/-, 9/8/2017 she paid Rs.904/-, and on 16/8/2017 she paid Rs.2121/- as per bills to the 1st opposite party. Besides that Rs. 1500/- was collected as examination fees. Though the medicines were used by her and son there was no improvement. Due to the inducement she was made to spent an amount of Rs.5425/-. The act of the opposite parties amounts to cheating. Hence the complaint is filed for realizing an amount of Rs. 5425/- being the amount spent by her, Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.5000/- for mental agony.
2. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
This opposite party is only a wellness consultant of the National Skill India mission and not marketing executive. There was no offer for treatment with the help of computer. Medicines were not prescribe and issued to complainant and her son. This opposite party has not received any amount from the complainant. There was no mental agony caused to the complainant due to the act of this opposite party and so she is not entitled for any compensation.
Complainant had filed a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police, Cherthala and both parties were hold there. Case was not registered hence there was no basis for the complaint. There was no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. On the above pleadings following points arise for consideration:-
1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.5425/- as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and for mental agony as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and Costs?
4. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A1 to A4 and MO1 and MO2 series from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite party.
5. Point No. 1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together.
PW1 is the complainant in this case. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A4, MO1 and MO2 series.
PW2 is the husband of the complainant, he stated that his son is having mental disability and is undergone treatment. Complainant is having the difficulties of Dry skin. 1st opposite party had visited their house for treatment. He had assured that they were cure the disease and accordingly some treatment were done. The fingers of his wife and son were taken in the laptop he gave super kids juice for price of Rs.904/- by CD was handed over and is marked as MO1. An amount of Rs. 1500/- was collected as fee for the treatment. They purchased the medicine from 1st time on 14/7/2017 and thereafter on 9/8/2017 and 16/8/2017. Ext.A1 series are the bills, MO2 are the empty bottles. PW1 sustained side effect due to the medicine. Though his son consumed 3 bottles there was no change. There was mental agony due to the act of the opposite parties. They gave complaints before the police authority and copy of complaints marked as Ext.A3 and A4.
1st opposite party got examined as RW1 and marked Ext.B1 to B3. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version. According to the 1st opposite party he is a wellness consultant. ExtB1 and B2 issued to him by National Skill India Mission is the evidence of qualification. He averred that he did not give any treatment to the complainant and her son and did not prescribe any medicines to them. He is not the marketing executive of 2nd opposite party. RW1 states that he went to complainant’s house since complainant’s husband calls him to his home.
It appears that complainant has no consistent case since she failed to prove following contentions before commission. There is no evidence before us that she and her son undergone treatment with 1st opposite party and who prescribed any medicine to her or son, except the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2. Not adduced any independent evidence or produced even a scrap of paper to justify her allegation. RW1 denied her contention during the cross examination. Moreover, not taken any effort to drive MO1 CD before the commission. Secondly, no evidence before us that 1st opposite party received Rs. 1,500/- as examination fees from the complainant. It seems contradiction with regard to the examination fee mentioned in the complainant. According to her opposite party received examination fee Rs.500/- each, but again stated that 1st opposite party received Rs.1,500/-. PW2 complainant’s husband deposed that 1st opposite party treated him also. Further there is no evidence that the relationship between 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party categorically stated that he has no nexus with 2nd opposite party and he is not a marketing executive of 2nd opposite party therefore, he did not supply any health products or any materials belongs to the 2nd opposite party and did not issue Ext.A1. On a perusal of Ext.A1 series it seems that those are order forms issued by 2nd opposite party, it is evident from Ext.A2 book let. Moreover in which Business Volume (BV) point is mentioned. On the above said aspect complainant failed to give proper explanation. The complainant alleges that she and her son consumed or used the products, mentioned in Ext.A1 series, as per the direction of 1st opposite party and both of them did not get any positive result. In the absence of reliable evidence we could not come to the conclusion that 1st opposite party prescribed and supply any medicines or other products to the complainant by collecting prices or fees. Evenif the complainant has a consistent case with regard to the treatment, our firm opinion is that, only an expert can say about the success of treatment. It seems that no reliefs sought against 2nd opposite party.
Even though Ext.A3 and Ext.A4 petitions preferred before concerned police authority by the complainant but nothing is seen with regard to the progress of said petitions. Nothing is on records to prove the unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and thereby complainant suffered any mental agony. Hence the complaint has no merit and dismisses the same without any cost.
MO1 and MO2(MO1. CD and MO2. Bottles) being valuable will be destroyed after appeal period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him correct by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 09th day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Meenakumari(complainant)
PW2 - Suresh Babu(Witness)
Ext.A1series - Bills
Ext.A2 - Book let
Ext.A3 - Copy of Complaint
Ext.A4 - Copy of complaint
MO1 - CD
MO2 - Bottles
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Rajesh.B(Witness)
Ext.B1 - ID card of Rajesh
Ext.B2 - National Skill India Mission certificate.
Ext.B3 - Copy of Whatsaap group
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
