O R D E R
By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President
The facts of the case are that the complainant is a retired government employee. The respondent is an Ayurveda doctor who claims that he can cure heart disease through Ayurveda treatment. The complainant is a heart patient and on 27/12/03 he approached Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Angiogram was taken. As per the Angiogram report there were three blocks in the nerve system of the heart. At that period he noticed one advertisement in Mathrubhumi Arogyamasika about the treatment and claims of respondent. He consulted with the respondent and respondent promised and offered 100% cure of the disease. The treatment started on 1/1/04 and was under the treatment upto 21/8/05. As per the direction of respondent complainant took medicines. He also followed ‘Pathyam’ as per the direction of respondent. After 20 months of treatment complainant approached Kovai Medical Centre and Angiogram was taken. As per the report there were three blocks in the nerve system of the heart as stated in earlier report. Subsequently Bypass surgery was conducted at Kovai Medical Centre and spent Rs.95,000/-. The complainant had given Rs.57,800/- to respondent for the treatment. But there was no effect as per advertisement. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that the complainant was a person of 61 years of age and on 27/12/03 he was advised for bypass surgery. In order to avoid the same he had consulted the respondent doctor. The treatment was started on 1/1/04 and medicines and yoga methods were prescribed. During the course of treatment by respondent doctor there was no serious difficulties to complainant and no treatment was taken for the disease at any hospitals. Only because of the treatment of respondent this was happened. There were so many people who were recovered from the disease due to the treatment of respondent. There was no deficiency in service from this respondent. Hence dismiss.
3. Points for consideration are :
1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs?
4. The evidence consists of oral testimonies of PW1, RW1, Exhibits P1 to P8 and Exhibit R1.
5. It is the case of complainant that he being a heart patient undergone Angiogram at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and it was noted three blocks in the nerve system of the heart. At that time he noticed Exhibit P8 advertisement. There was advertisement about heart treatment and claims of respondent. According to complainant after noticing advertisement he had consulted with the doctor and undergone treatment for 20 months. The respondent had received Rs.57,800/- from the complainant towards treatment. Even after the treatment the disease was not cured and at last bypass surgery had been conducted at Kovai Medical Centre. So the complainant alleges unfair trade practice on the part of respondent.
6. The respondent filed his counter and taken the contention that during the treatment period of respondent the complainant had not used the earlier medicines used for heart disease and also not consulted any other doctor during this period. According to respondent the complainant was having very good improvement due to the medicine given by the respondent and he did not have any chest pain or heart attack during the period.
7. Exhibit P1 is the page No.53 of Mathrubhumi Arogyamasika and as per the advertisement the respondent promised complete cure of heart disease. It is also stated there that without surgery a prominent curing of disease will occur and there were more than 10,000 people are there who were the beneficiaries for his treatment. As per Exhibit P1 advertisement we can see that the doctor assured total cure of heart disease. He promised a total solution for the heart problems. But it is the case of complainant that even after he had undergone treatment of the doctor his disease did not cure and at last he had been undergone bypass surgery. He is examined as PW1 and he deposed in support of his case. The complainant produced documents to show the treatment done at Kovai Medical Centre, Coimbatore. Exhibit P5 discharge summary, shows that complainant had been undergone heart surgery at Kovai hospital.
8. The complainant also produced Exhibit P8 the page No.55 of Mathrubhumi Arogyamasika dated December 2003 which would also contain the advertisement of respondent. It is the same advertisement which was given in Exhibit P1.
9. The respondent is examined as RW1 and Exhibit R1 book is marked from his part. According to him there were thousands of people who were recovered out of his treatment. But nobody is examined before the Forum or no evidence is produced. Exhibit P1 and P8 advertisements were admitted by him. It is the case of RW1 that during his treatment the complainant was well and was not undergone for treatment from another doctor. It is his case that complainant was having very good improvement due to the medicines and treatment given by the respondent and no heart attack or cardiac problem had been suffered by complainant. At the same time the respondent stated that the complainant had not followed the treatment as prescribed by him. According to respondent without seeking the opinion of respondent the complainant undergone bypass surgery.
10. Both the counsels filed argument note and the learned counsel for respondent stated that the complainant failed to follow the instructions given by respondent and without taking his advice he had consulted at Kovai Medical Centre, Coimbatore. But as per the advertisement the respondent doctor had given total cure of heart disease. The complainant had undergone 20 months treatment. It can be seen that no other treatment was undergone by complainant during that period. But his disease was not cured totally. The promise of respondent was complete cure of heart disease. It was not occurred. So it can be said that the respondent committed unfair trade practice by publishing misleading advertisement.
11. The respondent produced Exhibit R1 a book written by Tony Chittattukulam. In this book also the heart treatment of respondent doctor and the experience of some people are stated. It cannot be taken as evidence. In the present case the respondent committed unfair trade practice through a misleading advertisement. So the complainant is entitled for compensation from respondent. It is the case of complainant that he is entitled to get back the treatment expenses occurred out of the treatment of respondent. But he is not entitled to get the same. Because he has no case that the doctor did not treat him. Even after the treatment no recovery was there. So he is only entitled to get compensation.
12. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation with costs Rs.1,000/-within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If the amount is not paid within the time prescribed the complainant would be entitled to get 12% interest for compensation amount from today till realization.
Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of December 2011.
Sd/- Padmini Sudheesh, President
Sd/- Rajani.P.S., Member Sd/- M.S.Sasidharan, Member
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibit
Ext. P1 Mathrubhumi Arogyamazika
Ext. P2 Descriptive report
Ext. P3 Doctor’s prescription list
Ext. P4 Cardiac catheterization report
Ext. P5 Discharge summary
Ext. P6 Receipt
Ext. P7 Total summary bill
Ext. P8 Mathrubhumi Arogyamasika
Complainant’s witness
PW1 – A.Narayanan
Respondents Exhibits
Ext. R1 Book written by Tony Chittattukulam
Respondent’s witness
RW1 – Dr.Jayathilakan
Id/- President
