STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Master Harjot Singh minor son of Sh.Jagmohan Singh through his father and natural guardian Jagmohan Singh son of Late Shri Nirmal Jot Singh r/o House No.3235, Sector 15-D, Chandigarh.

….…Appellant

V E R S U S

Dr.Batra’s Positive Health Clinic Pvt. Ltd., SCO No.45-46, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

.…..Respondents

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  

Sh.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate for the appellant.

                Sh.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent.

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant-Sh.Jagmohan Singh (now appellant-Master Harjot Singh through his father Sh.Jagmohan Singh).

2.                    In brief, the facts of the case are that the son of the complainant namely Harjot Singh was suffering from hair fall problem. It was stated that the Opposite Party claimed that its doctors at Batra’s  Clinic were specifically trained in Trichology (Science of Hair) by international experts. The Opposite Party had also asserted that it successfully treated more than one lakh patients, suffering from hair problem, by using cutting edge technology like video microscopy. The said technique could find out the nature of hair loss, and thereafter could stop early loss of hair.  It was further stated that being allured by the advertisements, published in the newspaper, the complainant visited the Opposite Party and discussed the hair problem of his son. The doctors assured the complainant that the problem of hair fall could be treated and solved. They also advised him to deposit a sum of Rs.5500/-, which was so deposited by him on 19.04.2006 vide receipt (Annexure C-2).  Thereafter, he again deposited Rs.6500/- vide receipt (Annexure C-3). It was further stated that the complainant brought to the notice of the Opposite Party a number of times, that there was no recovery of hair fall of his son, but he was told that the treatment was going on and his son would  recover early. Thereafter, the complainant deposited another sum of Rs.6700/- vide receipt (Annexure C-4). It was further stated that his son took special diet, as advised by the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that there was no recovery in relation to hair problem of his son and instead all the hair, on the head of his son, disappeared. Ultimately, the complainant requested the Opposite Party to refund the amounts deposited by him, but to no effect. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the “Act” only), was filed.

3.                    In its written reply, the Opposite Party, stated that it provides homeopathy treatment for various ailments. It was admitted that the advertisement (Annexure C-1), which  appeared in the newspaper, was a caution to various patients, suffering from hair problem and emphasized that anybody having hair problem should understand that all was not well within his body.   It was further stated that the hair loss could be due to various reasons such as diabetes, anemia, polycystic ovarian syndrome, thyroid disorders and stress related disorder.  It was further stated that the doctors at the OP-Institute, were specially trained in Trichology (science of hair) by international experts  and had successfully treated more than one lakh patients, suffering from hair problem. It was further stated that the son of the complainant was suffering from chronic hair disorder, and had hair fall problem which resulted into patches in the scalp. It was denied that the Opposite Party ever assured that the son of the complainant would be completely cured. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had provided best treatment to its knowledge and ability by adopting the latest advanced technology through computer software output. However, the problem of the son of the complainant indicated a very poor immunity and highly deranged imbalance and so it was slow to react to medicines.  It was further stated that the allopathic treatment, in such a case, provided for giving steroids and injections, which had various side effects. However, the homeopathy had no such side effects, and had no physical agony, in the form of pain, and tenderness. It was further stated that the medical specialists of the Opposite Party, treated the son of the complainant, with due care and caution and to the best of their knowledge, ability and expertise. It was further stated that the complainant was satisfied with the treatment and that was why he continued to take further treatment.  It was further stated that the son of the complainant was suffering from problem of “alopecia totalis” which was very rare disorder but the medical specialist of the Opposite Party diagnosed the same, in the first consultation, and the complainant was informed about the prognosis and duration of the treatment at the beginning itself and, as such, there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the treating doctors. It was denied that, at any point of time, any false assurance was given regarding treatment to the complainant. However, it was admitted that the complainant had deposited the charges as alleged in the complaint.  It was further stated that the complainant was ex-employee of the Opposite Party, and, therefore, he was given discount and was asked to deposit Rs.5500/- instead of Rs.7900/-. It was further stated that the prognosis was explained to the complainant in April, 2006 and thereafter the son of the complainant started taking treatment after getting registered on payment of Rs.5500/- for a period of one year. It was further stated that the patient was doing well with prognosis as was evident, from the follow ups, taken by the doctors and every time he was reporting improvement in the condition with medicines.  The diet advised to the patient was a general hair diet.  It was further stated that the photographs (Annexure C-6 and C-7) did not explain anything and even the dates when those photographers were taken are not there. It was further stated that the complainant failed to produce any expert to prove his contentions. The son of the complainant had never shown any signs of depression or stress, during the follow up treatment. It was further stated that the homeopathy drugs did not have any side effects or cause of any aggravation of disease.  It was further stated that, the Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor negligent nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.                    The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.                    After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

6.                    Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                    We have heard the Counsel for the parties and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                    The Counsel for the appellant assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that after hearing the final arguments on 05.05.2011, the case was adjourned to 11.05.2011 for orders. On 11.05.2011, the complaint was adjourned to 19.05.2011 for further clarification.  It was  on 19.05.2011, the Counsel for the Opposite Party placed, on record, some documents i.e. the detail of statistics summary, with regard to the treatment of the patient and the same were taken on record by the District Forum without affording an opportunity to the complainant  for rebuttal which caused him a great prejudice. Once the District Forum had adjourned the case for orders, after hearing the arguments and, on the adjourned date, it needed some clarification, it could seek the same. On 19.05.2011, the Opposite Party produced very material evidence, in the shape of detail of statistics summary of treatment of the patient. It was, thus, at that stage, required of the District Forum, keeping in view the principles of natural justice, to afford an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence, in rebuttal. However, neither any opportunity was granted to the complainant to lead evidence, in rebuttal to the evidence, produced by the Opposite Party on 19.05.2011, nor it recorded the statement of his Counsel that he did not want to lead any rebuttal evidence. The complainant, thus, suffered a great prejudice, on account of this reason, resulting into grave injustice.

9.                    The Counsel for the appellant, further submitted that on the contrary, the District Forum dismissed the application moved by the complainant, for placing, on record, the evidence/expert opinion of Dr.Paramjit Singh Ranu on the flimsy ground, that the same was filed, at the belated stage of arguments, whereas, the documents sought to be placed on record, by the complainant, were essential for the fair, just and effective decision of the case. No doubt, the complainant filed the application, in question, before the District Forum, at a very belated stage of arguments, yet for this lapse, on his part, substantial justice could not be allowed to suffer, by disallowing the same. Since the case related to the medical negligence, the expert opinion of some doctor was essential, to enable the Consumer Fora, to decide the Consumer Dispute in a proper manner, and pronounce the, ultimate decision, in a better way. However, this aspect was totally ignored by the District Forum while dismissing the application.

10.                  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion, that the interest of justice, would be met if the case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to decide the same, on merits, afresh, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence, in rebuttal, to the evidence produced by the Opposite Party on 19.05.2011.. 

11.                  For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted with no order as to costs. The impugned order is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum  with a direction to decide the case afresh, on merits, in accordance with law, in view of the observations, made in para No.10 above. .

12.                  The parties are directed to appear, before the District Forum, on 10.09.2012 at 10.30.a.m.

13.                  The District Forum record, be sent back, immediately, alongwith a certified copy of this order.     

14.                  Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.                  The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                   Sd/-    

22.08.2012                                [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER[RETD.]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT           

                                                                                                                        Sd/-                                                                                         [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg