Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/250

Sunil Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

CMC& H - Opp.Party(s)

Shiv Pal ADv.

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 250 dated 23.05.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 17.11.2022.

 

Sunil Dutt S/o. Sh. Shiv Dutt, age 38 years, Resident of House No.577/3, Malerkotla House, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Christian Medical College & Hospital, Brown Road, Ludhiana through its Director/Incharge/Head/Manager.
2. Department of Pharmacy, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Brown Road, Ludhiana through its Head/Incharge/Manager.
3. N.O.P.D. Pharmacy, Store No.10, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Brown Road, Ludhiana through its Head/Incharge/Manager.
4. New Trauma Pharmacy, Store No.13, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Brown Road, Ludhiana through its Head/Incharge/Manager.
5. C.M.C. Hospital Pharmacy, Store No.11, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Brown Road, Ludhiana through its Head/Incharge/Manager.                                                                                  …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 2, 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Sh. Sunil Dutt in person.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Ravison Mattu, Advocate.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the mother of the complainant namely Smt. Shashi Bala remained hospitalized in opposite party’s hospital from 20.04.2019 to 24.04.2019 and her patient Id number was C7892352. During the course of her treatment, medicines were purchased either by the complainant himself or the orders of same was placed by opposite party No.2 to 5. The bills regarding the purchase of the medicines were issued as Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 in which an amount of Rs.5.90 (Rs.5/- plus 90 Paisa tax) was shown to have been charged on account of price of the carry bag for carrying the medicines. The complainant stated that no option was given to him before charging the cost of carry bags and the opposite parties had their own added the charges without the consent of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that he had objected to the charging of said cost of carry bags but of no results. According to the complainant, forcible charging of carry bags amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant prayed for refund/reimbursement of the cost of carry bag i.e. Rs.5.90 along with compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for undue harassment, mental agony and torture along with litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant has also prayed for direction to the opposite parties to provide environment friendly bag or paper bags to all its customers free of costs in future. Hence the complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement in which they have raised objections that the complaint is not within time and it is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the opposite parties. Further it has been filed to harass and extract money from the opposite parties. On merits, it was stated on behalf of the opposite parties that the patient of the complainant was treated well and was discharged in satisfactory condition. The opposite parties have further denied that the cost of the carry bags was charged for carrying the medicines without giving option to the complainant. It has been further stated that the carry bags are for the convenience of the attendant of the patients for carrying the medicines safely and the same are provided as and when asked by the attendants or the patients. It is the complainant who himself asked for the carry bags every time when he purchased the medicines because the opposite parties supplied the medicines in paper bags which are free of costs. The opposite parties have also denied their indulging in unfair trade practice and there is a deficiency of service on their part. It was further stated that the complainant is not entitled to any refund, damages/compensation or litigation expenses as prayed by him in the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 copies of the bills of medicine and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered affidavit Ex. RW1 of Dr. William Bhatti, Director Christian Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and closed the evidence.  

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties. We have also gone through the written arguments submitted by the opposite parties.

6.                Perusal of bills Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 shows that the complainant was charged with Rs.5.90 (total Rs.59.00) for carry bag on each occasion when he purchased medicines for the treatment of his mother. Even in the written statement, the opposite parties could not deny the charging of extra cost of carry bag from the complainant but have offered explanation that it was supplied for the convenience and on asking of the complainant. Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act has recognized six rights of the consumer mainly:-

(i)      the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property;

(ii)     the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard ad price of goods, products or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practice;

(iii)    the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices;

(iv)    the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interests will receive due consideration at appropriate fora;

(v)     the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and

(vi)    the right to consumer awareness.

It is not the case of the opposite parties that the factum of charging of additional cost of carry bag was conspicuously dis-played in the premises of pharmacy where the medicines were being displayed and sold to the customers. This is a stark violation to the all important consumer rights provided to the consumer under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

7.                The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.275 of 2020 reported in 2020 in SSC (NCDRC) 495 titled as  Big Bazaar (Future Retail Ltd.) Vs. Ashok Kumar has held that the consumer has a right to know before he exercises his choice to patronize a particular retail outlet, and before he makes his selection of goods for purchase, that additional cost will be charged for carry bags and also the right to know the salient specifications and price of the carry bags. It has further been held that prominent prior notice and information has necessarily to be there to enable the consumer to make his choice of whether or not to patronize the concerned outlet and the consumer is necessarily required to be informed of the additional cost for carry bags and of their salient specifications and price before he makes his selection of goods for purchase. It has been further held that it cannot be that a notice is displayed at the payment counter or that the consumer is informed at the time of making payment that additional cost will be charged for carry bags. Such notice or information at the time of making the payment not only causes embarrassment and harassment to the consumer and burdens him with additional cost, but also affects his unfettered right to make an informed choice of patronizing a particular outlet at the initial stage itself. It has further been held that arbitrarily and highhandedly deviating from its past practice, deviating from the normal, not giving adequate prominent prior notice or information to the consumer before he makes his choice of patronizing the retail outlet and before he makes his selection for purchase, imposing additional cost of carry bags at the time of making payment, after the selection has been made, forcing carry bags without disclosing their salient specifications at price as fixed by the OP company putting the consumer to embarrassment and harassment, burdening the consumer with additional cost, in such way and manner, is decidedly unfair and deceptive. 

8.                In the light of the law laid down in the cited case, it is clear that the consumer cannot be taken by surprise that he would be charged additional cost of the carry bag at the billing counter. In the instant case also, the complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.5.90 towards the cost of the carry bag on each and every occasion as and when he purchased medicines from the opposite parties. It was not brought to the notice of the complainant by way of a prominent notice at the entrance or elsewhere at the medical store that he would have to pay the additional cost of the carry bag. Therefore, this amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the OP shall pay back the amount of Rs.59/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only)  to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Sunil Dutt Vs CMC Hospital                                          CC/19/250

Present:       Complainant Sh. Sunil Dutt in person.

                   Sh. Ravison Mattu, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed exparte with an order that the OP shall pay back the amount of Rs.59/- to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The opposite parties shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only)  to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.