DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 71 of 2018

 

Sri Rajdip Das,

S/O- Sri Uttam Das,

Residing at R.B.S Road,

Near P.E.C. Brick field,

South Ramnagar, Ward No.-10,

Agartala-799001, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura,.…..................…...........................Complainant.

 

 

 

       -VERSUS-

 

 

1).  Dr. P. K. Das,

Hotel Somraj Regency,

Room No.-114, Available from 10th to 14th of every month,

Agartala-799001, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura,…............................................Opposite party.

 

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Saikat Saha,

  Advocate. 

For the O.P. : Sri Bidyut Ghosh,

  Advocate. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 31/07/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Rajdip Das, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the O.P.  

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant being a patient suffering from sexual dysfunction and having had allured by the advertisement published in local daily newspaper visited “New Life Ayurvedic Clinic” at Agartala on 14/04/2017. The O.P. being a Ayurvedic Doctor comes to Agartala from Kolkata on 10th stays till 14th in every month and treats patients at “Hotel Someraj Regency” in room No.114 at Agartala. On 14/04/2017 the Complainant visited the clinic of the O.P. and that the O.P. after examining the Complainant advised him to take Ayurvedic medicines for four months. The O.P. insisted the Complainant to purchase the medicines from him. Thus the Complainant had to purchase the medicines from the O.P. on payment of Rs.28,000/-. The complainant alleged that the O.P. did not give him any cash memo though he had asked for the same from the O.P. The O.P. had assured the Complainant that with the medicines the Complainant will be fully cured. The Complainant also stated in his complaint that he was deprived of knowing about the product details of the medicines he had purchased from the O.P. as  the containers of the medicines did not exhibit names of the medicines, names of manufacturers and also the date of expiry. The Complainant further stated in his complaint that after taking the medicines for a month he was not cured rather he was feeling pain in his lower abdomen. Feeling uneasiness he on 13/05/2017 visited the clinic of the O.P. and apprised him about his problem. The O.P. then advised the Complainant to continue with the medicines already prescribed. Thereafter the Complainant on 13/08/2017 again visited clinic of the O.P. and informed him about ill effects of the medicines on him. The O.P. than became furious and misbehaved with the Complainant. The O.P. however,  advised the Complainant to under go USG(W.A) and also asked him to continue with the previous medicines for more four months.  

  The Complainant has alleged in his complaint that the O.P. is primacy guilty of  committing unfair trade practice. He thus filed the present complaint against the O.P. claiming refund of the price of medicines amounting to Rs.28,000/-, compensation for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

  Hence this case. 

2.  The O.P. has contested the claim raised by the Complainant by filing written statement refuting the allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. has denied selling of medicines but admitted that the Complainant had visited his clinic on 14/04/2017 with a complain of sexual dysfunctioning and that he had advised the Complainant to take Ayurvedic medicines for four months. The O.P. also admitted publication of advertisement in daily news paper regarding treatment of patience by him in his clinic at Agartala.  The O.P. in his written statement denied that the complainant visited him second time except on 14/04/2017. The O.P. asserted that he was never involved in unfair trade practice.              

The O.P. has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

 3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

The Complainant himself  has been examined as witness. He has produced 03 documents. The said documents  on identification have been marked  Exhibit-I series. 

  The O.P. however has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence to controvert the claim of the Complainant. 

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:

Based on the contentions raised by both the parties in their pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant the following points cropped up for determination:

(I). Whether the O.P. is guilty of involving in unfair trade practice?

(ii). Whether the Complainant  is entitled to get compensation / relief ?

 5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

 

  The O.P. after submitting his written version did not take part in the rest part of the proceedings.  The O.P. however had been allowed by the Forum several opportunities but neither did he nor his Advocate cross examine the Complainant, adduce defense witness and also take part in the arguments.

                    We have heard arguments of the Complainant side.  

    It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the Complainant being a patient suffering from sexual dysfunction and having had allured by the advertisement published in the daily news paper under Exhibit-I series had for the first time visited the clinic of the O.P. on 14/04/2017. The O.P. after examining the complainant advised him to take Ayurvedic medicines for four months. The Complainant in his examination-in-chief has stated that he had been persuaded by the O.P. to purchase the Ayurvedic medicines for four months and that the O.P. did not give him any money receipt for the same. The O.P. in his written statement though admitted about prescribing of Ayurvedic medicines for the Complainant but has denied selling of medicines to the Complainant. From the prescription issued by the O.P. dated 13/08/2017 under Exhibit-I series we find that the Complainant with a complain of his abdominal pain had visited the clinic of the O.P. for the second time on 13/08/2017 and that on the same day the O.P. advised him to go for USG(W.A). We are surprised to see that the O.P. in his written statement denied the Complainant having visited his clinic for second time. This version of the O.P. contradicts with the prescription dated 13/08/2017 issued by the O.P. himself wherein he had advised the Complainant to under go USG(W.A.) test. We have already noted that the O.P. after filing written version had abstained from the Forum reasons best known to him. Such conduct of the O.P. makes the case of the complainant more probable. After careful scanning of the material on record, we are the opinion that the Complainant had really visited second time to the clinic of the O.P. on 13/08/2017  with his abdominal pain upon consumption of the medicines prescribed by the O.P. on 14/04/2017 for four months. The claim of the complainant that he had purchased the Ayurvedic medicines from the O.P. on payment of Rs.28,000/- has not been substantiated as the Complainant did not produce any money receipt to support it. Hence, payment of Rs.28,000/- to the O.P. by the complainant can not be relied upon. We further noticed that the Complainant in his complaint as well as in his Examination-in-chief has emphatically stated that with the medicines prescribed by the O.P. he was not cured of the disease  suffered by him though the O.P. by causing publication of advertisement in the local news paper had allured him that the O.P. was capable of curing various diseases as mentioned in the advertisement including the disease being suffered by the Complainant. 

We find that the O.P. did not adduce either oral documentary evidence to controvert  the allegations of the Complainant. 

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material on record we are the opinion that the Complainant has partly proved his case U/S of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. 

In the result, the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant is allowed partly on contest. We find and hold that the O.P. is guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice.

    It is hereby directed that the O.P. shall pay Rs.15,000/- for indulging in unfair trade practice, Rs.10,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant together with Rs.4,000/- as cost of litigation. The O.P. is to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.29,000/-(Rs.15,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.4,000/-) in total to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made. 

 

    

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.