The case is taken up for exparte hearing.

The complainant files hazira and certain original documents by firisti.

Complainant also submitted written notes of argument.

 The case is taken up for exparte hearing. Heard the Ld advocate for the complainant. Perused the case record.

            The brief facts of the complainant case are that on 23.2.2017 the complainant went to the medicine shop of the OP in order the purchased medicines as per prescription of Dr. Anup Ghosh dated 23.2.17. The OP vide memo No. 058564 supplied 5(five) medicines to the complainant but he did not supply the medicines following the prescription of said Dr. Anup Ghosh . OP gave one medicine which was not prescribed by the Doctor in his prescription. Compliant verified the medicine at home and again went to the shop of the OP and asked him to take back the wrong medicine but the OP denied to receive the wrong medicine on the plea that medicine Once sold will not be taken back and the OP behaved roughly with the complainant. The OP has adopted unfair trade practice. Hence this case.

In this case the OP entered appearance and filed written version but ultimately failed to turn up and accordingly the case proceeded exparte against the OP.                                                                                                         

 The complainant has submitted his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and original prescription of DR. Anup Ghosh dated 23.02.2017 and the cash memo issued by the OP against purchase of  the medicines . On perusal of the prescription and the cash memo we find that OP did not supply Omez-20(serial no.3) and Combifalm (serial no.5) to the complainant as per prescription of Dr.  Anup Ghosh dated 23.02.2017. Again we find from the cash memo that the OP supplied one cough syrup namely “Corituss syrup” to the complainant although the said syrup was not prescribed in the prescription of Dr. Anup Ghosh dated 23.02.2017 . On perusal of the written version submitted by the OP.  We find that the complainant did not agree to purchase the painkiller medicine i.e. Combifalm  and the medicine for gas i.e. Omez -20 and as such the OP did not supply the said medicine to the complainant. From the written version we further find that at the request of the complainant OP supplied a cough syrup  namely “Corituss syrup” to the complainant.

In many cases we find that the customers without having any prescription of Doctor used to purchase medicines from the medicine shop. Now the question is whether the complainant suffered any problem after consumption of the said cough syrup . Hear we do not find anything to hold that the complainant suffered problem after consumption of the cough syrup supplied to him by the OP, if the OP supplied the said cough syrup to the complainant without having his request, the complainant could refuse to accept the said cough syrup then and there at the spot but he did not do so. So, there is no hesitation to hold that the cough syrup was supplied to the complainant by the OP at his request. OP claimed that two medicines as mentioned in serial no 3 & 5 of the prescription were not supplied to him by the OP . But it is heard to belief that a medicine seller refused to sell medicine to a customer as per prescription of the Doctor supplied to him if the customer agreed to purchase the said medicine and if the said medicine is available in the shop. The medicine shops are opened with a view to supply medicine to the customers according to their need on production of the Doctor’s prescription and when the customer is found not agree to purchase any ,medicine only then a medicine seller is not supply the said medicine to the customer.

From the fact and circumstances of the case it is clear that the complainant deny to purchase the medicine mentioned in serial no. 3 and 5 of the prescription and accordingly the Op did not supply the said medicine to the complainant. The complainant has failed to establish by sufficient cogent evidence that inspite of his demand the Op refused to supply the medicine Omez-20 and Combifalm to him and the Op further supplied him the cough syrup without his consent. The case of the complainant is not established; accordingly the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

In the result the case fails.

 Hence it is

O R D E R E D

That the Consumer case No. 29/S/2017 be, and the same is dismissed exparte against the Op.

Let a copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.