DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 128 of 14.05.2007<br /> Decided on : 29-08-2007 <br /> <br /> Kulwant Kaur aged about 30 years, D/o Darshan Singh, R/o Dhobiana Basti, Power House Road, Bathinda, Tehsil and District Bathinda. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> Dr. Nandan Puri Grain Market, Mandi Kalianwali, District Sirsa. <br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Bikaramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite party : Sh. Naveen Goyal, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this forum to the opposite party to pay her damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00 Lacs and cost of litigation.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :<br /> She is a reputed singer. Her Audio cassettes released are available in the market. As per advertisement given by the opposite party, he is qualified doctor in the field of Obesity. With the treatment provided by him, there could be weight loss upto 15/20 Kgs within a fortnight without any side effect. On 15.11.06, she had approached him as she had excess weight. After examining her, opposite party pro-claimed that he has already treated thousands of patients like her and she would face no problem. She believed him. Opposite party prescribed medicines for 20 days for reducing her body weight. She was told that within 20 days, there would be weight loss upto 10 Kgs. Prescribed medicines were used by her. Thereafter she contacted him. Medicines were again prescribed for next 20 days with the assurance that she would loose weight upto 15/20 Kgs without any side effect. She used the prescribed medicines for 30 days but they had no effect. To the contrary she started feeling uneasiness. Medicines affected her voice. She is unable to sing to the satisfaction of her clients. She is loosing programmes to be booked by various clients and as such, she is undergoing financial loss. Subsequently, she came to know that opposite party is not a qualified or competent doctor. He is playing with the life of the people at large and is befooling them by charging heavy amount. Instead of reduction in her weight, it has gone up. Her melodious voice has been affected and she has become more fatty. She has suffered physically, mentally and financially. Services rendered by opposite party are deficient. She got served legal notice upon the opposite party through her counsel, reply of which was sent.<br /> 3. On being put to notice, opposite party filed reply of the complaint stating that complainant is not consumer, she is not a registered singer; there was no advertisement on his part and concocted and coloured version has been given by her. He is a registered medical practitioner. He denies that complainant had approached him on 15.11.06 for getting treatment for Obesity and that he had prescribed medicines for weight reduction. He further denies that medicines were repeated by him. Prescription slip attached by the complainant with the complaint does not relate to him. Moreover, this prescription slip is not for reduction of weight. Tab Gasix is consumed for acidity problem. Tab Liv 52 is consumed for liver problem i.e. blood weakness. Tab Oflox is taken for stomach problem and is anti-biotic. Kumari Aswa is an Ayurvedic medicines and Dashmularist is consumed for digestive problem. They have no side effect and are not injurious to health. Medicines were not taken from him. Remaining averments in the complaint are denied. Additional objections have been taken to the effect that complaint is not maintainable in the present from; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; this forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it. Complainant is estopped from filing it by her act and conduct and complaint is false and frivolous.<br /> 4. In support of her averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence her two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5), prescriptions (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4), affidavit of Sh. Dharmatama Singh (Ex. C-6), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-7), photocopy of postal receipt (Ex. C-8), photocopy of Acknowledgement Card (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10) and photocopy of reply to legal notice (Ex. C-11).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, affidavit of the opposite party (Ex. R-1), photocopy of order (Ex. R-2) and photocopies of certificates (Ex. R-3 & Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant.<br /> 7. Mr. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the complainant argued that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party stands established from the evidence of the complainant which consists of her own affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5, affidavit of Dharmatama Singh Ex. C-6, prescription slips Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4, copy of the legal notice Ex. C-7 and copy of the reply of legal notice Ex. C-11. He further drew our attention to copy of the reply of the legal notice Ex. C-11 and submitted that opposite party in a way has admitted that medicines were prescribed to the complainant.<br /> 8. Mr. Goyal, learned counsel for the opposite party contended that evidence on the record does not prove deficiency in service at all on the part of the opposite party. In fact complainant never approached the opposite party for availing his services.<br /> 9. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite party. Opposite party does not admit that complainant had approached him for getting treatment for obesity and medicines were prescribed by him with the assurance that she would loose weight of 15/20 kgs and that medicines were repeated. So far as affidavits of the complainant which are Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-5 are concerned, they are amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of the opposite party. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. It was for her to prove the averments in the complaint by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Since opposite party has denied the allegation of issuance of prescription of medicines, complainant was required to prove the prescription slips Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 to be in his hand by way of getting them examined from an expert. Evidence to this effect is lacking. No doubt, notice copy of which is Ex. C-7 was served by the complainant upon the opposite party and reply of it copy of which is Ex. C-11, was sent by opposite party through his counsel. A careful perusal of Ex. C-11 does not reveal that opposite party admits that she got treatment from him for obesity. In the reply of the legal notice, it has been mentioned that opposite party attends more than 200 patients daily and as such it is difficult to know about the disease of the complainant. It has further been mentioned that complainant was not admitted in the hospital. He has further given the offer that if prescription slips are in possession of the complainant, the same may be supplied so that he may be able to give proper reply. In these circumstances, there is no clinching evidence of the complainant on the basis of which it can be said with certainity that she had contacted the opposite party for getting treatment of obesity and medicines were prescribed by him through prescription slips Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4.<br /> 10. Even if case of the complainant is considered as has been set up by her in the complaint, even then, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party can be concluded. No expert witness has been examined by her to prove that the medicines prescribed through slips Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 are meant for reducing body weight. No expert has been examined by her to prove that the medicines prescribed through Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 can have side effects and that they can affect voice of the person consuming them. To the contrary, opposite party in his affidavit Ex. R-1 has stated in so many words that Tab Gasix is consumed for acidity problem. Tab Liv 52 is consumed for liver problem. Tab Oflox is for stomach problem and is an anti-biotic. Kumari Aswa is an Ayurvedic medicines and Dashmularist is consumed for digestive problem. He has further stated that medicines prescribed on the prescription slips do not have side effect and are not injurious to health. Opposite party has been registered as Practitioner under The Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Practitioners Act, 1963 as is evident from Ex. R-3. He has also been registered with the Ayurvedic and Unani Medical System Board, Haryana as is clear from Ex. R-4. Complainant has not produced and proved on record affidavit of any doctor in support of her version. Complainant alleges that there was no reduction in her weight despite the fact that treatment was taken by her. Neither in the complaint nor in her affidavits she has made it clear as to what was her weight before the alleged medicines were started. Similarly complainant was required to establish her voice quality before she started the alleged treatment of obesity and after she stopped the treatment. No doubt, complainant has proved affidavit Ex. C-6 of one Dharmatama Singh. No weight can be attached to it as he is not expert in voice quality or expert doctor to disclose the side effect of the medicines. There is nothing in Ex. C-6 that he had accompanied the complainant when she had allegedly gone to the opposite party for getting treatment for obesity. In such a case expert evidence was required on various aspects such as side effect of the medicines recorded in Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-4 and voice quality. There is no evidence to this effect.<br /> 11. From the facts, circumstances and the evidence discussed above, crux of the matter is that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not proved. Accordingly complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 29-08-2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br />