KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION 17/2011

ORDER DATED 26.3.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                       --  MEMBER

M/s.Ernakulam Medical Centre,

Ernakulam Bye pass,

Palarivattom, Kochi – 682 025                          --  REV.PETITIONER

Reptd. by its Managing Director.

          (By Adv.P.Ramakrishnan & Ors.)

                   Vs.

1.      Benny Joseph,

          General Convenor, Janapaksham,

          Residing at Thettayil House,

          Rainbow, Centenerary Road,

          Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017.

2.      M/s. Natco Pharma Limited,                    

          Nagarjuna Sagar 508202

          Registered office at Natco House,

          Road No.2, Banjara Hills,                         --  RESPONDENTS

          Hyderabad – 500 033.

3.      M/s. Shantha Bio Technics Limited,

          A-1, 291, Erdanoor,

          Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District,

          Andhra Pradesh.

4.      M/s.Maria Pharma

          Office at 35/759 B, Norrth Janatha

          Road, Palarivattom,

          Kochi—682 025 reptd by its

          Proprietor/Director.

5.      Assistant Drugs Controller,

          Central Zone, Collectorate,

          Kakkanad, Ernakulam,

          Kochi – 682 030.

ORDER

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The revision petitioner is the 4^th opposite party/hospital in CC 24/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The preliminary objection raised by the revision petitioner before the Forum below as to maintainability has been rejected by the Forum.  The revision petitioner has produced the copy of the complaint also with the revision petition.   As contended by the revision petitioner, we find that the order of the Forum is not a speaking one.  The Forum ought to have been mentioned the contention of the opposite party and  the reasons for the dismissal of the objection raised by the revision petitioner.   All the same, we find from the other allegations of   the  complainant   is that  his relative a lady, who was treated at the revision petitioner/hospital for cancer had to pay excessive amounts for the drugs.  He has mentioned the cost of a particular drug as per the bill of the hospital asRs.6200/- and the same drug he purchased from the third opposite party/distributor from the same city for Rs.3,200/-.  There is a different  of Rs.3,000/-.  For another drug he purchased  for Rs.1,400/- for which the hospital was charging a MRP at Rs.2,940/-.  The case of the revision petitioner is that the hospital has billed the medicines an MRP which has been fixed by the Government and hence the revision petitioner cannot be made a party in the proceedings.  It is true, that there   is no pleading that the revision petitioner charged amounts exceeding the MRP.  The drugs controller, the manufacturer, distributor and the dealer are also parties in the proceedings.   We find that the contention as to the maintainability cannot be upheld as in case the allegations of the complainant are true there is clear instance of unfair trade practice.  It is not the case of the complainant/revision petitioner   that it is an un-necessary party.    The revision petitioner has to be a formal party at least in the proceedings as the patient was under treatment at the revision petitioners/hospital and the drugs were administered at the hospital of the revision petitioner.  The Forum may consider the contentions of the revision petitioner in detail at the time of disposal on merits.

          In the circumstances, we find that there is no  scope for admitting the revision petition.  The revision petition is dismissed in limine.

          The office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  PRESIDENT

 S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER