D.O.F. 23.04.2011

                                        D.O.O.08.05.2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

       Present:   Sri. K.Gopalan                 :    President

             Smt. K.P.Preethakumari  :     Member

             Smt. M.D.Jessy                :     Member

Dated this the 8^th  day of  May  2012

C.C.No.131/2011

K.Saseendran,

Paladan House,

Post Thottada,

Kannur 670 007                                               Complainant

(Rep. by  Adv.Deepak Madathil) 

Director,

Koyili Hospital,

Post Pallikkunnu,

Kannur 670 004.

(Rep.by Adv.P.Mahamood)                                   Opposite party

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `186.80 and an amount of  `10,000 as compensation along with the cost of this litigation.

          The case of the complainant is that he has purchased 15 tablets Lipikind 20 for 15 days consumption and obtained Bill dated 1.4.2011. As per the bill opposite party received `342.60 from the complainant. When it was examined he could find that the price of the Lipikind entered 3 times 6 +5+4 etc. and price `207.00, `17.25 and `13.80 respectively with a total of `238.05. On further examination it was found the MRP for 10 tablets was only 34.50. That means the total price of 15 tablets would come only `51.75. The matter was informed to opposite party but their explanation  was that the tablets were come in different batch and the details would be given if he meet them directly. On  11.4.2011 complainant went to pharmacy directly. But the employees present there at that time insulted him by saying that they cold not do anything and they have done everything under the instruction of opposite party. Opposite party had received an excess amount of  `186.60 and insulted the complainant. Hence he is entitled for the refund of the amount and also compensation.

In pursuance of the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows: Opposite party is a multi specialty Hospital at Kannur. The complainant had purchased the prescribed medicine from the opposite party’s pharmacy on 1.4.11 as per the alleged bill.  The price of the tablets of Lipikind is 3.45 paise. The price of 6 tablets should have been `20.70. But by mistake the entry in the bill happens to be `207.70. It was a mistake on the part of the entry staff. It was a bonafide mistake and not deliberate act on the part of the staff of opposite party. The total price of 15 Lipikind tablets is `51.75 paisa and by mistake it was billed as `238.05 and excess amount collected through error was `186.30 paisa. When the complainant approached the pharmacy staff they were ready to refund the amount colleted by mistake. He was also offered to pay traveling expenses. There was no unfair trade practice. A clerical error cannot be termed as unfair trade practice. Opposite party is willing to refund the excess amount collected and such other reasonable amount which the Forum deems fit unjust.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of complainant and Exts.A1, A2 and Mo1. There is no oral or documentary evidence on the part of opposite party.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant purchased 15 Lipikind tablets from the pharmacy of opposite party. Opposite party has also admitted that the alleged excess amount was received by opposite party but by mistake. The main case is with regard to the issuance bill and receiving an excess amount of `186.30 over and above the MRP. Opposite party contended that it was a bonafide mistake and not deliberate act on the part of the staff of the opposite party hospital. Opposite party has also admitted that they are ready and willing to refund the excess amount and reasonable amount which the Forum deems fit and just. Opposite party also contended that a bonafide mistake cannot be termed as unfair trade practice.

          However the main point lies herein is to examine whether the entry of price of the tablets involved any unfair trade practice or an error crept in by mistake. Ext.A2 is the sales bill. The second item Lipikind 20, quantity 6 in number is the relevant entry, which we are supposed to discuss and decide. The price is written as `207.00. Admittedly the price Lipikind is `3.45 paisa, so naturally the total price of 6 tablets shall be `20.70 and not 207.00. At the same time next two items of entry for 5 tablets and 4 tablets correct price `17.25 and `13.80 is written. Opposite party contended that it was by mistake `207.70 were entered instead of the amount `20.70.Occurance of error cannot be ruled out. The individual order of the number 2070 is one which may pave the way for such a mistake.  But we are not relying upon such probability test it should defeat the efficacy of the consumer protection Act. Even if it is an error that should be taken as negligence or inefficiency of the counter system followed by opposite party. Since it is a busy pharmacy there should be a system of second verification so as to make it assure that the system is free from such a mistake. So we take this error as a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

          However the attitude of the opposite party right from the beginning to settle the issue offering readiness to refund the excess amount  can be taken as a positive approach. No doubt opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount 186.30. Complainant alleges that apart from economic loss he was insulted by the employees of opposite party and suffered shame. Pleading of the complainant reveals that he had first contacted the pharmacy over telephone. The answer at that time as stated by complainant is as follows: “At¸mÄ Kpfn-I-IÄ hnhn[ _m¨p-I-fn-embn h¶-Xm-sW-¶p-T-A-Xp-sIm­mWv C¯-c-¯n hne-bn hy-X-ym-kT h¶n-cn-¡p-¶-sX-¶pT AhnsS \n¶p-T-th-W-sa-¦n t\cn«v AhnsS t]mbm C¡mc-yT t_m²-y-s¸-Sp-sa-¶pT ]d-bp-I-b-­m-bn.”.  We don’t feel that there is any element of insult in the above given sentence to be ashamed of. It may be true or not true but we don’t think it can be treated as an insulting answer.  Thereafter complainant went to pharmacy and the error brought to the notice of employees present there at that time. The answer given by the persons present there according to complainant was thus “^mÀa-kn-bn-ep-f-f-hÀ R§Ä¡v H¶pT sN¿m³I-gn-bn-sÃ-¶pT FXr-I-£n-bpsS \nÀt±i-{]-Im-c-amWv C¯-c-¯n sN¿-¶-sX-¶pT ]d-bp-I-bp-­m-bn.”. The first reaction of the employees reflected in the above sentence cannot be taken as insulting but only a decent approach irrespective of going into the facts whether it was true or false. Thereafter the complaint goes to read thus: “ CXns\ tNmZ-yT  sNbvX ]cm-Xn-¡m-cs\ ^cmÀa-kn-bn-ep-f-f-hÀ A]-am-\n-¡p-I-bmWv sNbvX-Xv. XpSÀ¶v ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ FXr-I-£nsb t\cn«p I­-Xn AhÀ¡v C¡m-c-y-¯n H¶pT sN¿m³ Ign-bnà F¶p ]d-bp-I-bpT A]-am-\n-¡p-I-bpT sNbvXp”. He did not explain how did they insulted him. What was the words or sentence that they had used to insult him had not been explained. Ongoing through the entire pleadings one cannot see the employees had used any sentence that caused to disgrace or shame to complainant, though alleged that he was insulted. It is understandable if the allegation is that the employees falsely stated those things to him. Complainant has adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit repeating the above stated sentences.  Thus the absence of pleading together with the evidence in tune with the pleadings does not make out any case of insult to the complainant. Complainant though alleged that he was insulted by the employees of opposite party he did not adduced convincing evidence to establish such case. Hence the contention that the complainant was insulted by the employees of opposite party is not sustainable.

          However, taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances the case we find deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and thereby opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount `187 together with an amount of `500 as compensation and a sum of `1000 as cost of this litigation. Thus issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of complainant and the order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed  directing the opposite party to refund an excess amount of   `187 (Rupees One hundred and eighty seven only) received from the complainant together with an amount of `500 (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation and a sum of `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act.                  

Sd/-                     Sd/-                    Sd/              

        President               Member                Member                                                 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.Doctor’s prescription

A2. Bill issued by OP

MO1. Foils of tablets

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

 Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

        / forwarded by order/

                                                                                      Senior Superintendent