BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 145 of 2018
Date of Institution : 03.05.2018
Date of Decision : 30.05.2019
Birhma Devi wife of Sh. Sohan Lal, resident of village Nathore, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1- Dr. S.S. Arora, B.A.M.S. Regd No. 22194, C/o Jain Ayurvedic Clinic, Bhagat Singh Chowk, Rori Bazar, Sirsa, Distt. Sirsa.
..…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA……………… PRESIDENT
SHRI ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ……MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………..MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.L. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Purshotam Phutela, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant is of 32 years young lady. That op advertised that he is the specialist of skin diseases and in the prescription slips, it is clearly mentioned that his clinic is serving since about last 90 years. It is further averred that complainant had a little mark on her neck and she approached at op’s clinic and shown the same to him. Then op asked the complainant that this mark is a sign of “Fulvehri” (leucoderma) disease and op assured to do treatment of the same also gave guarantee to remove the same. The op advised to take medicine for about 3 to 6 months. It is further averred that on every type of assurance of op, the complainant started to take medicine from op on 14.8.2017 which was very costly but in order to remove the said mark she took the same for four months and spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- but instead of removal of little mark, she received very large marks on her whole body. The complainant approached the op and told about it upon which the op had given more and more costly medicines to her but the said marks were going to increase day by day. The complainant again visited the op but he started to put the matter off with one pretext or the other and now he has flatly refused to hear the complainant. It is further averred that village Nathore is about 60 Kms. away from Sirsa and complainant visited to the op several times and has spent a huge amount on travel. In this way, the op has looted and cheated the complainant in day broad light and body of complainant has become ugly and all this occurred due to negligent treatment of op. Now complainant is taking further treatment from Dr. J.S. Pasricha of Skin Disease Centre, New Delhi since 3.1.2018 and is spending very huge amount on her treatment and has spent Rs.40,000/- till today. The doctor has told that this treatment will continue for about two years and Rs. one lac will be spent on treatment. That complainant approached to the op and asked him to pay compensation for his negligent act but he flatly refused to admit the request of complainant. The complainant also served a legal notice to the op but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that prescription slip produced on file by complainant is not under the hand written of op nor the same is signed by the op, hence the originality of the letter pad belonging to the clinic of op is denied for want of proof. It is further submitted that prescription slip dated 14.8.2017 produced on file does not bear the signature of the op. In case the complainant would have approached the op, then the op must have prescribed the suitable medicines as per problem of the complainant, as the profession of the op is only to remove the problem of the patient and not to increase the same. The complainant failed to produce on file any such report which may draw the inference of any negligence on the part of op and this thing also proves that complainant has filed this complaint just in order to extort money from replying op. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
3. The parties then led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove her complaint has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and has also tendered documents i.e. legal notice Ex.C1, postal receipt Ex.C2, copy of prescription slip dated 14.8.2017 Ex.C3, copy of prescription slip of Dr. J.S. Pasricha dated 3.1.2018 Ex.C4, copies of laboratory test report Ex.C5 and Ex.C6, bill dated 3.1.2018 Ex.C7, bill dated 17.4.2018 Ex.C8, again copy of prescription slip dated 3.1.2018 Ex.C9, Ex.C10 copies of bills Ex.C11 to Ex.C13 and photographs Ex.C14 to Ex.C22. On the other hand, op has furnished his affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the written statement. He has specifically deposed that complainant is totally false and frivolous and same is liable to be dismissed. He has deposed that prescription slip produced on file by complainant is not under the hand written of op nor the same is signed by him. The complainant has failed to produce on file any such report which may draw the inference of any negligence on the part of op. He has denied that due to medicines prescribed by him, there was extension of “fulvehri” disease on the body of complainant and that complainant has further failed to produce on file any such report that as a direct result of the medicines prescribed by the op, fulvehri on her body gone increased.
6. The perusal of evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has relied upon prescription slip Ex.C3 which was allegedly issued by op but on the other hand, op has categorically denied the issuance of this prescription slip and also denied his signatures on the prescription slip, but however, complainant has not led any other cogent and convincing evidence in order to prove issuance of this prescription slip Ex.C3. The complainant has not moved any application to get compared the signatures of the op on this document by calling opinion of hand writing expert and has also not led any other corroborative evidence in order to prove her plea in the complaint against op. The complainant has not placed on record any bill of purchase of medicines which was purchased by her in pursuance to the prescription given in Ex.C3. The complainant has not placed on record any opinion of medical expert that complainant was treated by op in a negligent manner or the fulvehri disease was increased due to wrong medical advise of the op. Even Dr. J.S. Pasricha who is attending the complainant from the last few months as per averments of complainant which is evident from Ex.C9 has not given any opinion that op was negligent in giving treatment to the complainant. So, it appears from the evidence of complainant that complainant has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove her allegations against the op.
7. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President, Dated:30.05.2019.
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
