Haryana

Karnal

CC/314/2019

Kamla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amrit Pharmacy - KCGMC (A Division Of Hllifecare Ltd) Kalpana Chawla Govt. Medical College - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Chopra

23 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                       Complaint No. 314 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.31.05.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:23.06.2022

 

Kamla Devi wife of Shri Budh Ram won of Shri Suraj Bhan, resident of village Shergarh Tapu Tehsil and District Karnal.

       

               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Amrit Pharmacy-KCGMC (A Division of Hllifecare Ltd.) Kalpana Chawla Government Medical College near administration block Karnal, Haryana-132001. Phone 8360658418 DL no.3088-B, 3088-OB, GSTN-06AACH5598K1Z5 State Haryana (06) through its sales man.

 

                                                                …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik……Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Kunal Chopra, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Vinay Bansal, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

 

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant met with an accident in the end of October as a consequence of which her right leg between the hip and knee was broken. Complainant was admitted to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical, Hospital, Karnal, where she was advised for putting the rod after doing x-ray. On the advice of the doctors, complainant purchased  a rod named as Femur Nail 9021, vide bill  dated 24.11.2018 of Rs.5350/- and got fixed the same in her leg. At the time of selling, the OP assured that the said Rod is of good quality. After fixing the rod complainant remained on bed continuously for three months and on the advice of the doctors she started walking. Thereafter, complainant went to meet her daughter at Ponta Sahib, District Sirmor (Himachal Pardesh) and the abovesaid rod broke down while she was walking, due to which complainant suffered unbearable pain and she was taken to hospital of Dr. Jagdish Chand Juneja at village Surajpur, Ponta Sahib on 19.0-4.2019. The x-ray was conducted there, where it was found that due to breakage in rod, the same bone of complainant again fractured and she was again admitted in to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical, Hospital, Karnal for further treatment on 19.04.2019 at 9.06 p.m. Complainant kept in Orthopedic ward for treatment and x-ray was conducted and after getting the x-ray it was found that the rod was broken due to inferior quality which was already fixed and asked her to bring new rod of good quality. On knowing it, the complainant’s son went to OP and asked about the poor quality of rod, which was broken and due to which the his mother was again admitted in the hospital. On the advice of the doctor, the complainant’s son purchased the another rod of Rs.13,910/-, vide bill dated 06.05.2019 marka Femur Nail (TT) Miraclus ORTHC. The said rod was fixed by the team of doctor Santosh and Dr. Ramnish. The complainant was discharged after fixing another rod. Due to selling of the poor quality of rod to the complainant, the complainant and his family has to face financial loss by going through the process of treatment including the two time operations. In this way there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; concealment of facts and mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties as OP is only a pharmacy being run by Government of India which sells the drugs (including cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes, stents etc.) including implants, surgical disposables and other consumables which are being supplied to the OP by the different companies/manufacturers. The question FUMER NAIL manufactured by Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Corporate Office at 310, Sanket Avenue-opposite Ambe Vidyalaya, Same Savli, Vadora-390024 Gujrat-India was purchased from the OP-the OP has intimated about the complaint to said company who will be able to give detailed reply if joined as party in the present complaint and as the complainant knowing very well about the manufacturing company of NAIL in question has not intentionally and deliberately joined the said manufacturing company. On merits, it is pleaded that the second time also, the rod i.e. Femur Nail was purchased by the complainant from the OP which clearly shows that she was having full faith upon the OP, but OP is only selling drugs and implants, surgical disposables and other consumables. The supply of the Femur Nail in question was made to the complainant as per her demand. The product in question was shown to the complainant before its purchase and after satisfying herself about the manufacturer and its quality the complainant thought it fit to purchase the Femur Nail manufactured by M/s Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. The OP had, nowhere in picture, compelled the complainant to purchase the product in question as such liability can be fastened upon the OP regarding the product in question. Even otherwise, it could be that, the complainant has not taken necessary precautions and care as required for any patient having Femur Nail implanted in her body and this must be the reason for breakage of the Femur Nail in question. The product in its complete sealed pack was sold to the complainant as procured from the manufacturer M/s Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. There has been no tampering of the pack/product by the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of medical report Ex.C1, copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C5.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of Bijay brasad Dyundi Ex.RW1/A, certificates of M/s Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. Ex.R1 and Ex.R2, copy of letter dated 11.07.2019 Ex.R3, copy of letter dated 15.07.2019 Ex.R4, copy of report Ex.R5 to Ex.R8, copies of bills Ex.R9 to Ex.R32 ad closed the evidence on 16.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant met with an accident as a consequence of which her right leg in between the hip and knee was broken. Complainant was admitted to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical, Hospital, Karnal, where she was advised for putting the rod after doing x-ray. On the advice of the doctors, complainant purchased a rod named as Femur Nail 9021, vide bill  dated 24.11.2018 of Rs.5350/- and got fixed the same in her leg. At the time of selling, the OP assured that the said rod is of good quality. After fixing the rod complainant remained on bed continuously for three months and on the advice of the doctors she started walking. Thereafter, complainant went to meet her daughter at Ponta Sahib, and the abovesaid rod broke down while she was walking due to which complainant suffered unbearable pain and she was taken to hospital of Dr. Jagdish Chand Juneja at village Surajpur. The x-ray was conducted there, where it was found that due to breakage in rod, the same bone of complainant again fractured and she was again admitted in to Kalpana Chawla Government Medical, Hospital, Karnal for further treatment it was found that the rod was broken due to inferior quality which was already fixed and asked her to bring new rod of good quality.. On the advice of the doctor, the son of complainant purchased the another rod of Rs.13,910/-, vide bill dated 06.05.2019 marka Femur Nail (TT) Miraclus ORTHC. The said rod was fixed by the team of doctor Santosh and Dr. Ramnish. Due to selling of the poor quality of rod to the complainant, the complainant and his family has to face financial loss by going through the process of treatment by the twice operations

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that that the rod i.e. Femur Nail was purchased by the complainant from the OP, but OP is only selling drugs and implants, surgical disposables and other consumables. The supply of the Femur Nail in question was made to the complainant as per her demand. The product in question was shown to the complainant before its purchase and after satisfying herself about the manufacturer and its quality the complainant thought it fit to purchase the Femur Nail manufactured by M/s Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. The OP had nowhere compelled the complainant to purchase the product in question. He further argued that complainant has not taken necessary precautions and care as required for any patient having Femur Nail implanted in her body and this must be the reason for breakage of the Femur Nail in question. The product in its complete sealed pack was sold to the complainant as procured from the manufacturer M/s Griportho Surgical Pvt. Ltd. There has been no tampering of the pack/product by the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contention of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, complainant has purchased the rod i.e. Femur Nail from the OP, vide bill Ex.C4 for Rs.5350/-. It is also admitted that second rod was also purchased by the complainant from the OP, vide tax invoice/bill Ex.C5 of Rs.13,910/-.

10.           As per version of the complainant, OP had supplied the rod in question of inferior quality due to that rod was broken. The complainant is 75 years old lady. Price of the first rod is only Rs.5350/- and price of the second rod is Rs.13910/-. It appears from the cost of the rods, complainant’s son himself purchased the inferior quality rod. The OP is only a pharmacy firm who used to sell medical equipments are being supplied by the manufacturing companies. The rod in question has manufactured by the Nail Company, but said complainant has not been impleaded as party in the complaint. OP is only distributor, hence OP cannot be held liable any manufacturing defect/inferior quality of the rod in question. Hence, in view of the above, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

11.           In view of the above, present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated the order accordingly, and the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.06.2022.

 

                                                                       

                                                        President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)      

                      Member                        Member