Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/478/2012

E. SARAH BEEVI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. K. SHEK ALLAUDEEN - Opp.Party(s)

K. RAVI KUMAR

18 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                        BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 478/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No.70/2010 dated 31.1.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagapattinam ]

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015

E. Sarah Beevi

W/o Ebrahim

Salt Road

Nagapattinam                                                                    ..Appellant/complainant

                                                                           Vs

1.Dr.K.Sheik Allaudeen

N.S.S Hospital

7, Naduvar Keela Veedhi

Nagapattinam Town       

 

2. Proprietor

N.S.S Medicals

7, Naduvar Keela Veedhi

Nagapattinam Town                                                       ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for the Appellant/complainant  :  Mr.K.Ravikumar

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent            : M/s N.Babukannan

2^nd Respondent                                  : Called absent

 

     The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Nagapattinam  in CC.No. 70/2010 dated 31.1.2011.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 26.10.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Nagapattinam, this commission made the following order.

                                         

                                                                 ORDER

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.             The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.          The complainant had treatment from the 1^st opposite party and on the basis of the prescription medicines were purchased from the 2^nd opposite party for which the 1^st opposite party is the owner and the 2^nd opposite party collected excess amounts towards medicine charges, purchased for more than four years to the extent  of Rs.75,000/- when he compared with prices of the medicines with one Ashok medical shop, he came to know such excess collection and thereby giving the complaint to the District Collector and S.P of the District and also filed a consumer complaint for direction for refund of Rs.75,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs. 3 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony and for costs.

4.           The opposite parties denied the allegations contending the 1^st opposite party is not the owner of the 2^nd opposite party and he has not compelled the complainant to purchase medicines only in the 2^nd opposite party’s shop.

5.           On the basis of both side materials and after an enquiry, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant has not proved the case.

6.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without considering the documents of the complainant.

7.          We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered all the relevant materials in this regard. The complainant alleged that the 1^st opposite party being the owner of the medical shop, the 2^nd opposite party issued prescription which could not be readable easily by others except the 2^nd opposite party and insisting to purchase medicines only from that shop alone and thereby they have collected excess amount for Rs.75,000/- by billing more than actual value of the medicines purchased which comes to know only through the other medical shop Ashok medicals to whom medicines were shown for before comparing the prices, but the complainant has not produced any material to prove the same and the bill except Ex.A.7 for the purchase of Rs.73.30 paise and to prove that those medicines were prescribed by the 1^st opposite party which are comparable to the 2^nd opposite party’s medical bills and the complainant has produced only the prescription by the 1^st opposite party under Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.1 is only for two purchases for which the actual prices to prove either the companies cost, price details or medicines purchased to verify the cost are not produced before the District Forum and thereby it is clear that the complainant was not able to prove the alleged collection of excess cost of medicines by the 1^st opposite party as for as of the ownership is concerned, even though the complainant has contended the 1^st opposite party is the owner of the medical shop attached to the clinic, the 1^st opposite party produced the Registered certificate of medical shop of 2^nd opposite party as Ex.B.1, in which the name of the owner is mentioned as S.Syed Beevi and thereby it is clear that the 1^st opposite party as per record is not the owner and for that at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for Respondent, the opposite party brought to the notice of this Commission and as against the 2^nd opposite party NSS medicals and against the 1^st opposite party and on the basis of complaint given by the complainant to the drug Inspector, a criminal complaint was filed by the Drug Inspector against the opposite parties 1 and 2, in which the name of the 2^nd opposite party’s owner name mentioned as S.Syed Beevi as proprietor of NSS medicals and thereby it is clear that the alleged collection of excess charges, towards the medicines by the 2^nd opposite party, 1^st opposite party cannot be held responsible and thereby we are of the view, the District Forum has considered all the relevant materials of either side are came to proper conclusion in which finding, there is no error or infirmity and thereby this appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit and accordingly,

 

           In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum.

            No order as to costs in this appeal.

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                          A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                                   PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER                  

                                        

 INDEX: YES / NO

Siv/AKA/ord/d/