Admn/Mgr St.Marys Mission Hospital V/S P Savithri - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

04/2007

P Savithri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Admn/Mgr St.Marys Mission Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

19 Dec 2007

ORDER

CDRF Wayanad
Civil Station,Kalpetta North
Execution Application(EA) No. 04/2007

P Savithri						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Admn/Mgr St.Marys Mission Hospital Dr.Raghu MD ,Prem Pharamaceutical						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

1. K GHEEVARGHESE

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant purchased a cow from the Opposite Party on 16.02.2006 at the price of Rs.10,000/-. As assured by the Opposite Party, the cow milks 10 litre per day and the sale was effected after the first calving, when the cow conceived for the second time. The calving was on 13.06.2006. While milking the cow the Complainant understood that two teats are blocked and no milk could be extracted from the blocked teat. Only two litres of milk provided by the cow in lactation. The treatment was given and the doctor who treated the cow opined that the teat block could not be cured. The Opposite Party was informed of the facts but she was untenable. The Complainant purchased the cow under the assurance that it milked 12 litres. The Opposite Party sold the cow to the Complainant knowing that it is having the decease of teat block. It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. There (Contd..... 2) - 2 - may be an order to refund the value of the cow Rs.10,000/- incurred in the unfair trade practice. For the treatment charges the complainant's spent Rs. 600/- . The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and Rs.600/- the amount spent for treatment. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The purchase of the cow was in the month of September 2005 in giving an advance amount of Rs.2,000/-. At the time of purchase the cow was milking. The condition of sale was that the cow alone without calf was sold to the Complainant. As agreed by the Complainant after the sale of cow it was in the custody of the Opposite Party till 16.02.2006. The Complainant also visited the house of the Opposite Party recurrently till 16.02.2006 to verify the treatment to the cow. The Complainant was also convinced of the quantity in lactation received for 5 months. The payment of advance was on 16.02.2006. The Complainant had taken the cow to his home giving Rs. 7,000/- at hand. The remaining Rs. 1,000/- due to the Opposite Party was given by the Complainant even after the laps of one weeks from taking the cow to his home. The first calving the Opposite Party had milked 7 to 10 litres on every day and this was the term assured by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. There was no promise any terms from the part of the Opposite Party that the cow milked 12 litres. The averment as such block in two teats and the treatment given by the Doctor as such are false and denied by the Opposite Party. The allegation attributed upon the Opposite Party is absolutely baseless and motivated. The complaint given in Vellamunda Police Station against this Opposite Party was also rejected. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. (Contd........3) - 3 - The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any unfair trade practice in the sale of the cow?; 2.Relief and cost. Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1. The medical advice script issued by the Doctor T. Sivadasan is marked as Ext.A1. The Complainant rendered oral evidence of the witnesses apart from the oral testimony and Ext.A1 no other documentary evidence was brought out by the Complainant. It is admitted that the cow was purchased when it was conceived of 4 to 5 months. The delivery effected after 5 months. At the time of sale no calf sold to the Complainant. The Complainant has no such a case that the cow was handed over on the very same day of the sale. It is further deposed by the Complainant that the cow was delivered to the Opposite Party after the period of milking was over. Whereas according to the Complainant no advance was given by him. The purchase of the cow was only upon the oral terms, Ext. A1 is the document produced by the Complainant. There is nothing to show in this document that the cow is having teat block, instead it is only the description of the medicines. The witness examined on the side of the Complainant is a family friend as admitted who is examined as PW2. PW2 has no knowledge of the purchase of the cow before 2006. According to PW2 the colour of the cow is brown. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The document purchased by the Opposite Party is marked as Ext.B1 subject to the objection of the Complainant the colour of the cow there in is white. The witness examined on the side of the Opposite Party is examined as OPW2. According to the OPW2 whether the cow had any decease was not known to her. The allegation of the Complainant is that the cow had teat block after the first calving and teat block was suppressed and not disclosed to the Complainant. The delivery of the cow was effected 5 months after the purchase by the (Contd........4) - 4 - Complainant. The sale was during the conceiving period more over if any decease of teat block was there it was not drawn out in evidence. The point No.1 is in favour of the Opposite Party. There is no unfair trade practice in the sale of the cow . Point No.2: Point No.1 is found against the Complainant. The Complainant cannot establish the case that the cow purchased by him is inherent with unfair trade practice. The detail analysis of the point No.2 is not required. In the result the complaint is dismissed without any costs. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2008.

By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complaint in brief is as follows. The Complainant purchased a cow from the Opposite Party on 16.02.2006 at the price of Rs.10,000/-. As assured by the Opposite Party, the cow milks 10 litre per day and the sale was effected after the first calving, when the cow conceived for the second time. The calving was on 13.06.2006. While milking the cow the Complainant understood that two teats are blocked and no milk could be extracted from the blocked teat. Only two litres of milk provided by the cow in lactation. The treatment was given and the doctor who treated the cow opined that the teat block could not be cured. The Opposite Party was informed of the facts but she was untenable. The Complainant purchased the cow under the assurance that it milked 12 litres. The Opposite Party sold the cow to the Complainant knowing that it is having the decease of teat block. It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. There (Contd..... 2) - 2 - may be an order to refund the value of the cow Rs.10,000/- incurred in the unfair trade practice. For the treatment charges the complainant's spent Rs. 600/- . The Complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain and Rs.600/- the amount spent for treatment. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The purchase of the cow was in the month of September 2005 in giving an advance amount of Rs.2,000/-. At the time of purchase the cow was milking. The condition of sale was that the cow alone without calf was sold to the Complainant. As agreed by the Complainant after the sale of cow it was in the custody of the Opposite Party till 16.02.2006. The Complainant also visited the house of the Opposite Party recurrently till 16.02.2006 to verify the treatment to the cow. The Complainant was also convinced of the quantity in lactation received for 5 months. The payment of advance was on 16.02.2006. The Complainant had taken the cow to his home giving Rs. 7,000/- at hand. The remaining Rs. 1,000/- due to the Opposite Party was given by the Complainant even after the laps of one weeks from taking the cow to his home. The first calving the Opposite Party had milked 7 to 10 litres on every day and this was the term assured by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. There was no promise any terms from the part of the Opposite Party that the cow milked 12 litres. The averment as such block in two teats and the treatment given by the Doctor as such are false and denied by the Opposite Party. The allegation attributed upon the Opposite Party is absolutely baseless and motivated. The complaint given in Vellamunda Police Station against this Opposite Party was also rejected. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. (Contd........3) - 3 - The points in consideration are. 1.Is there any unfair trade practice in the sale of the cow?; 2.Relief and cost. Point No.1: The Complainant is examined as PW1. The medical advice script issued by the Doctor T. Sivadasan is marked as Ext.A1. The Complainant rendered oral evidence of the witnesses apart from the oral testimony and Ext.A1 no other documentary evidence was brought out by the Complainant. It is admitted that the cow was purchased when it was conceived of 4 to 5 months. The delivery effected after 5 months. At the time of sale no calf sold to the Complainant. The Complainant has no such a case that the cow was handed over on the very same day of the sale. It is further deposed by the Complainant that the cow was delivered to the Opposite Party after the period of milking was over. Whereas according to the Complainant no advance was given by him. The purchase of the cow was only upon the oral terms, Ext. A1 is the document produced by the Complainant. There is nothing to show in this document that the cow is having teat block, instead it is only the description of the medicines. The witness examined on the side of the Complainant is a family friend as admitted who is examined as PW2. PW2 has no knowledge of the purchase of the cow before 2006. According to PW2 the colour of the cow is brown. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The document purchased by the Opposite Party is marked as Ext.B1 subject to the objection of the Complainant the colour of the cow there in is white. The witness examined on the side of the Opposite Party is examined as OPW2. According to the OPW2 whether the cow had any decease was not known to her. The allegation of the Complainant is that the cow had teat block after the first calving and teat block was suppressed and not disclosed to the Complainant. The delivery of the cow was effected 5 months after the purchase by the (Contd........4) - 4 - Complainant. The sale was during the conceiving period more over if any decease of teat block was there it was not drawn out in evidence. The point No.1 is in favour of the Opposite Party. There is no unfair trade practice in the sale of the cow . Point No.2: Point No.1 is found against the Complainant. The Complainant cannot establish the case that the cow purchased by him is inherent with unfair trade practice. The detail analysis of the point No.2 is not required. In the result the complaint is dismissed without any costs. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 29th day of March 2008.

......................K GHEEVARGHESE