IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 4th day of November 2009 CC.247/2006 N.C.Chacko, Njallimakkal House, Chelimparambu, Nellikutty.P.O 670 632. Complainant Dr.E.D.Joseph, Clinical Psychologist, Near Old Post office, Opposite party Pallikkunnu.P.O. (Rep.by Adv.Jameel Ahmed) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.16, 000/- as compensation and cost of these proceedings. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant approached the opposite party doctor for the purpose of consultation for IQ test for his grand son, a mentally retarded child. Opposite party is a clinical psychologist for the I.Q assessment. Complainant paid a total sum of Rs.700/- to opposite party including the fee to conduct the IQ test. But the doctor failed to make proper medical consultation and no IQ test was conducted and without conducting I.Q test and proper consultation opposite party received Rs.700/- from the complainant. Hence he sent a letter to return the amount since the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. He has also expressed his readiness to settle the mater amicably. But opposite party did not reply the letter. Hence this complaint. Pursuant to notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main contentions of opposite party. The case of the opposite party in brief is as follows: The child named Clint was taken to his house for private consultation on 21.4.2006. I.Q assessment was done and certificate was issued on the same date. Complainant offered the fees but opposite party did not receive fees, because he being the patron of the association of parents for mentally retarded. He never charges fees for the I.Q assessment and other consultations of such children. It is not correct to say that he has not conducted any test. The complainant’s daughter who is the mother of the child was a party in OP.N9o.161/05 before the Family court, Kannur and the opposite party who is working as a counselor happened to counsel the parties in the said opposite party. After counseling the complainant approached the opposite party and insisted him for a favourable report which was totally denied. The present complaint is only to wreak vengeance against the opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2Whether the complaint is entitled to get relief as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consist of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and documentary evidence Exts.B1, B2 and Ext.X1. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 Complainant admittedly approached the opposite party for the I.Q assessment of his daughter’s child. The case of the complainant is that he approached opposite party for the purpose of consultation and conduct I.Q test of his grand son, a mentally retarded child. Complainant alleged that the opposite party received a total sum of Rs.700/- from the complainant but he did not conduct the I.Q test and thus thoroughly failed to make proper medical consultation which is a clear deficiency of service. Opposite party on the other hand contended that he met the child on 21.4.2006 and done I.Q Assessment and issued the certificate. Opposite party also contended that although the opposite party offered the fee the opposite party did not receive it because he being the patron of the Association of Parents for mentally retarded never charges fee for I.Q Assessment and other consultations of such children. The definite case of the opposite arty is that he has not received any amount as fees. Complaint pleaded that he has paid Rs.300/- on 18.4.06 and Rs.400/- on 21.4.06 i.e. A sum of Rs.700/-. Complaint in his chief affidavit given evidence in Para 3 that “ FXnÀ I£nsb ImWp-¶-Xn-\p-thn 18.4.06\p kpamÀ 3 a-Wn-¡mWv Rm\pT Fsâ- a-I-fpT aI-fpsS aI-\mb taÂhn-h-cn¨ Ivfnâs\ ImWn-¡p-¶-Xn-\mbn t]mb-Xv. sSÌv \-S-¯-Wsa¶ t]cp ]dªv 18.4.06\p FXnÀI£n 150-cq-]-bpT 21.4.06\p 400 cq]-bpT FXnÀI£n hm§n. F¶m bm-sXm-cp- sS-ÌpT FXnÀ I£n \S-¯p-I-bp-m-bn-Ã. I¬kÂt«-j³ NmÀPmbn 18.4.06\p 150- cq] hm§n-sb-¦n-epT ^e-{]-Z-amb bmsXmcp Imc-y-hpT tUmIvSÀ sNbvXnÓ. The evidence adduced by chief affidavit reveals altogether he has paid only Rs.550/-. But complainant’s case is that he has paid Rs.700/-. No receipt produced or any witness examined to prove it. Complainant met the doctor together with his daughter. At least he could have examined her as witness to prove it; since she is an eye witness. It is very relevant since the opposite party has specific case that he has not received any fees. Opposite party has also given evidence though his chief affidavit that: “ _p²n-hn-Im-kT Ipdª Ip«n-I-fpsS t£a-¯n-\mbn {]hÀ¯n-¡p¶ I®qÀ ]mcâv-A-tkm-kn-tb-j³ t^mÀsaâen dn«mÀUUv F¶-k-T-L-S-\-bpsS c£m-[n-Im-cn-bmb Rm³ km[m-c-W-bmbn A¯-cT Ip«n-I-sf-]-cn-tim-[n-¡p-T-t]mÄ c£n-Xm-¡-tfmSp ^okv hm§m-dnà F¶p-f-f-Xp-sIm-mWv ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-\nÂ\n-¶pT bmsXmcp ^okpT hm§m-Xn-cp-¶Xp. This evidence cannot be straight away rejected. This is the situation warranted necessity of examining the witness in absence of the document. Complainant’s daughter is an eye witness, who can adduce best evidence to prove the payment. Opportunity to place best evidence has been lost because of not utilizing the opportunity to examine the mother of the child, who brought the child with him to the doctor for consultation and IQ test. Ext.X1 is a document that proves the opposite party was a counselor in O>P.No.161/05 before the Family court. The opposite party contended that after counseling the complainant approached the doctor to influence him to get a favourable report which the opposite party rejected. The opposite party specifically contended that:IpS-T_ tImS-Xn-bn sh¨p-mb sshcm-K-y-T-XoÀ¡p-¶-Xn-\mbn am{X-T-sI-«n-¨-a-¨-XmWv Cu ]cm-Xn-bn ]d-bp-¶-Im-c-y-§Ä. AÃmsX CXn bm-sXmcp hmkvX-h-hp-an-Ã. ^okv hm§m-sX-\-S-¯nb NnInÕ Bb-Xn-\m C§s\ Hcp ]cmXn Cu tImSXn ap³]msI \ne-\n¡p-¶-X-Ã. But the complainant in his affidavit evidence nothing has stated about the above said incident. Complainant should have specifically denied it. Non denial only can be taken to consider that the contention of opposite party is true. Herein also complainant missed the opportunity to disprove the contention by examining his daughter, the party to the proceeding OP.161/05 before the Family court. Complaint deposed in cross examination that; Cu tIÊn counseling \S-¯n-bXp Bcm-sW¶p F\n-¡-dn-bn-Ã. In the absence of examination of complainant’s daughter it cannot be ascertain that he was not aware of the person who counseled the parties. Complainant deposed in cross examinations that he was ready to examine his wife and daughter but he did not. On going through the evidence and perusing the documents on record we are of opinion that complaint could not succeeded in establishing his case by placing cogent and adequate evidence. The available evidence does not prove deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Thus issues Nos. 1 to 3 are found against complainant In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant: Nil Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Letter dt.1.6.06 sent by Consumer protection complaint cell Naduvil B2.Mathrubhumi Diary Exhibits for the court X1.Letter issued from family court, Kannur. Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Dr.E.D.Joseph /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer disputes Redressl Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
