DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  16^th day of December, 2022.

Present      :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

                  :  Smt.Vidya A., Member                           

                      :  Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                           Date of Filing: 29/08/2018    

     CC/100/2018

Abdullah,

S/o Moideen Haji,

Nellamki, Vavad Post,

Koduvalli, Kozhikode – 673 572                 -              Complainant

(By Adv. K. Dhananjayan)  

                                                                                                Vs

1.            Dr. V. Ravindran,

Homoeo Medical and Research Centre,

6/602(1), Karuna Buildings, Puthur Road,

Palakkad – 678 001.

2.            Homoeo Medical and Research Centre,

6/602(1), Karuna Buildings, Puthur Road,

Palakkad – 678 001,

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory.                              -                              Opposite party

                (By Adv. N. Rajesh)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Quintessential pleadings are that the complainant’s son, a stage IV cancer patient, shifted to homoeo treatment, after listening to the advices of the 1^st opposite party. Opposite party, a quack had induced the complainant and his son to stop all allopathic methods of treatment by his incessant abuses of allopathic method of treatment. Inspite of undergoing the opposite party’s treatment, complainant’s son’s condition deteriorated upon termination of allopathic treatment. Homoeo treatment rendered no effect and eventually, son of the complainant succumbed to the disease. The opposite party is not a Registered Medical Practitioner, and  uses the prefix “Dr.” to misguide and mislead the general public at large.  Alleging that the death of the son occurred as a concomitant of the treatment rendered by the opposite party doctor, this complaint is filed seeking compensation to a tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- together with interest and for other incidental reliefs.
2. Opposite parties filed version (unsigned by the opposite party) repudiating the complaint pleadings alleging that the treatment rendered to the son of complainant was only palliative care and not a treatment to cure the disease per-se. There was no negligence whatsoever and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The following issues arise for consideration:

1. Whether the opposite parties have filed a valid version?
2. Whether the complainant has proved that death of the son of the complainant occurred due to negligence on the part of the opposite party doctor?

3.            Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party?

4.             Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for?

5.             Reliefs, if any?

4.            Eventhough many opportunities were granted, the proceedings were conducted in a shoddy manner by the complainant. Adjournments strewn over years marred the entire proceedings. Eventhough proof affidavit was filed no documents were marked by the complainant. Hence Evidence of complainant was closed without adducing any evidence. Opposite parties also did not adduce any evidence.

                Issue No.1

5. Counsel for the complainant jumped a surprise attack at the time of hearing stating that the Opposite party has failed to affix his signature in the version and hence the pleadings therein were to be rejected in toto.

On verification it was found that the allegation was factual and valid. The question therefore to be considered is whether the non-signing of the version is fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The opposite party is represented by a validly and legally constituted lawyer who is well versed in the court proceedings. The said counsel has affixed his signature therein. Upon perusal of the contents of the version we found that the pleadings were not adverse to the interests of the opposite party and were meticulous addressing and negotiating of the complaint pleadings. All through the proceedings, counsel for the opposite party had put up an effective representation and defense of the best interests of the opposite party, based on the pleadings in the version.

Hence we find that, in the facts and circumstances of the case herein, non-affixture of signature, though vital, is not fatal to the case and interests of the opposite party.    

Issue No.2

6.            Next question to be answered is whether the deceased died due to the treatment meted out by the opposite party doctor. Complainant’s case is that the opposite party is a practitioner of Homoeo system of medicine, but is not entitled to use the prefix of “Dr.” before his name. The opposite party has resorted to illegal practices and is nothing but a quack.  Fiery pleadings apart, rest of the conduct of the case was ineffective to prove the allegations raised by the complainant.

The complainant was granted ample and enough opportunities to adduce evidence, but they kept adjourning the evidence on one ground or another. Eventhough proof affidavit was filed, the complainant failed to mark the documents. On a perusal of documents adduced, we find that there are no documents that would point a finger at any negligence in treatment rendered by the opposite party.

Thus the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove his allegations that the death of the complainant’s son is attributable to the opposite party.

Issue No.3

7.            Pursuant to the findings in the preceding issue, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.

The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

                Issue Nos. 4 & 5

8.            Resultantly we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

                                Pronounced in open court on this the 16^th  day of  December, 2022.                        

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                                          Vinay Menon V

                                                              President

                                                               Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

           Sd/-                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                  Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Exhibit: Nil

Third party documents: Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.