IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 31st day of January, 2024
Filed on: 05.01.2023
Present
- Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt. C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.02/2023
between
Complainant:- | Opposite Parties:- |
Sri. Jithin Jerome 1. Johnson & Johnson Pvt. Ltd
S/o Jerome Acuvue vita Brand Contact Lenses
Puthenpurackal Johnson & Johnson Vision Care inc
Pathirapally.P.O 7500 Centurion parkway, Jacksonville
Poonkavu, Alappuzha Florida 32256 USA imported & Marketed by
(Adv. G. Sunil Kumar) Johnson & Johnson, Rep by its Managing Director
Pvt Ltd, LBS Marg, Mulund West Mumbai-400080
(Adv. M/s Menon & Pai)
2. Lens & Frames Opticians,
Rep by its Manager, Authorized Eye Clinic &
Contact Lenses Centre, YMCA Road,
Opp. Seematti Theater, Vazhichery, Sea View Ward
Alappuzha
(Adv. Sohail Mohammed Ansary)
ORDER
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
Complainant is a 3rd year (5th semester) Btech electronics and communication engineering student in St. Josephs Engineering College Pala, Kerala and his father is a Taxi Driver. Though from a humble background, complainant has always been a studious and meritorious student. But virtue of his outstanding academic credentials and merit he became eligible for scholarship in his engineering course from the very first semester. The normal fee per year for the course is Rs. 94,000/- (Rupees Ninety four thousand rupees) Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand rupees ) is covered by the scholarship and he had to pay only Rs. 54,000/- per year during the first 3 semesters.
Complainant has simple short sightedness since childhood. Therefore, he used to get his eye checked by ophthalmologist periodically every year and whenever required change the power of his spectacle lenses as per the advice of the ophthalmologist. While so, in February 2021, complainant and his father visited 2nd opposite party’s outlet for purchasing spectacles and while selecting the same 2nd opposite party’s staff pronounced about Acuvue Vita Brand Contact Lenses manufactured and imported by 1st opposite party from Johnson and Jhonson vision care inc having its office at 7500 Centurion Parkway, Jacksonville, Florida 32256, USA and convinced the complainant by the advertisement of first opposite party’s product. The 2nd opposite party is the retailer of said lenses.
Believing representations about the quality and utility of the product by the 2nd opposite party’s staff. On 11/7/2022 complainant purchases 12 pairs of Acuvue Vita Brand Contact Lenses for one year for an amount of Rs. 7,485/- from the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase the 2nd opposite party pronounced and assured/made believe and promised the complainant that the lens can be used 23 hours continuously.
Thereafter the complainant used the said contact lenses following the instructions of the 2nd opposite party on 22/8/2022 and after 10 hours of use felt irritations, redness developed pain and itching feeling. On 23.8.2022 complainant treated in Alphonsa Eye Hospital, Pala and after examination and first aid complainant was referred to Little Flower Hospital and research center Angamaly.
On 24/8/2022 complainant was examined in detail by the doctors at Little Flower Hospital and it was diagnosed as “LEFT EYE MICROBIAL KERATITIS”, due to the use of defective contact lens and also due to the wrong instruction given by 2nd opposite party regarding its usage. The doctors opined that the condition is severe and even there is risk of affecting the eyeballs. Complainant was admitted in critical care for 24 hours. The complainant suffered severe pain and enormous difficulties. A discounted hospital bill of Rs. 6,474/- (Rupees six thousand four hundred and seventy four) was paid by complainant. The complainant’s father ringed up 2nd opposite party and informed about their poor product and wrong information regarding usage given by their staff which resulted clinical necessity. They admitted their negligent act.
In the above situation, complainant was not able to attend his 2nd year 4th Semester exam for subjects Professional ethics, DBMS (Data Base Manage System) and Constitution of India which were scheduled on 21/8/2022, 26/8/2022 and 2/9/2022 respectively. As stated above complainant is a meritorious student and so he became eligible for scholarship from the very 1st semester. As per the criteria for the above referred scholarship, if a candidate fails in an examination or misses an exam, such candidates become permanently ineligible for further scholarship throughout the course. In the above referred situation resulted in loss of scholarship permanently for complainant for the whole period of the course after the 3rd Semester.
The condition of “LEFT EYE MICROBIAL KERATITIS” caused to the complainant is solely and directly due to the supply of defective contact lenses or wrong pronouncement regarding duration of use of contact lens by the 2nd opposite party. Hence, the opposite parties are liable under law to compensate complainant for the injuries/losses caused due to their negligence in supplying defective contact lenses and wrong instruction regarding usage of contact lens which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The compensations is estimated and limited as under
a. Pecuniary loss covered by Medical Bills :- 6474/-
b. Pecuniary loss of defective contact lese:- Rs. 7,485/-
c. Pecuniary loss due to loss of scholarship for 2 years :- Rs. 80,000/-
d. Compensation for pain, mental agony and suffering :- Rs. 2,00,000/-
e. Compensation for loss of prospects:- Rs. 2,00,000/-
Hence the complainant estimated the compensation as Rs. 4,93,959/-.
Therefore this complaint is filed and sought following reliefs.
a. To direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 93,959/- (Rupees Ninety three thousand nine hundred and fifty nine only) together with interest to the complainant.
b. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees Two lakhs) as compensation towards mental and physical pain , agony and hardship and suffering caused to the complainant.
c. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 2 lakhs (Two Lakhs) as compensation for loss of prospects caused to the complainant and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version file by the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has suppressed material facts in the complaint and have approached this Commission with unclean hands. There is no negligence or deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant at the instance of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party markets the Acuvue range of products in India which are specialized products recognized world wide for its excellent quality and efficiency. The 2nd opposite party is one of the retailer of this opposite party. The subject matter contact lens manufactured by the Parent Company of the 1st opposite party come with a printed requisite information inside the package. Instructions Guide specifically recommends the precautions to be followed by the users of the contact lens.
The instructions guide further recommends WEARING SCHEDULE for the patients using the products for the first time. The schedule is strictly recommended to all new users Acuvue Vita Contact Lenses by all eye care professional and optometrists. It is submitted that on top of the responsibility of the eye care professional who prescribe the contact lenses manufactured by the opposite party herein to recommended the wearing schedule to the patient, the patient himself has a responsibility to take reasonable care and caution and go through the printed important instruction on the package. It is submitted that the 2nd opposite party is not an exclusive retailer of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is selling products of multiple brands being manufactured by various companies.
Further the complainant is an engineering student who have been facing problems with eye sight since his childhood. That being so, a reasonable care and caution should be forthcoming from the complainant who being an engineering student ought to have read and understood the important instructions on a sensitive product like contact lens before using the same. The opposite party herein being not privy to the communications between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party are also unaware as regards the contentions which respect to the interactions between them. It is submitted that the Eye Care Professional who prescribed the contact lenses had a bounden duty to ensure that the patient is adhering to the WEARING SCHEDULE prescribed in the patient instruction guide. The 1st opposite party has never left instructions to make any hyper eloquent representation about the quality and utility of its products to customers as averred by the complainant. The WEARING SCHEDULE recommended in the Instructions Guide specifically mentions that for the 1st 4 days of usage, the lens is not to be worn for more than 14 hours. The aforementioned wearing schedule is strictly recommended to all new users by all eye care professional and optometrists. The wearing schedule in the instructions guide only recommends a maximum of 8 hours of usage on day 1. The complainant himself is admitting that he used the contact lenses contrary to the recommendations. The averment that the complainant was rushed to the Alphonsa Eye Hospital Pala etc. are made to give rigour to the contentions raised in the complaint, baseless and hence denied. The averments in the 8th paragraph of the complaint are incorrect and hence denied. It is contended that Microbial Keratitis (commonly known as an inflammation of the cornea) is usually caused by germs in the eye due to unclean usage of contract lenses. It is submitted that Microbial Keratitis in contact lens wearers is typically associated with non complaint or unhygienic contact lens practices. A germ infection like Microbial Keratitis can never be caused due to any manufacturing defect in the contact lens. It is to prevent such incidents that the opposite party herein specifically cautions the users to follow the precautions mentioned in the patient instructions guide which specifically recommends to keep the hands clean before inserting contact lenses, disinfect and use fresh contact lens solution for storage lenses etc. It is clear that the eye infection if any caused to the complainant is clearly due to no following proper care & management of the contact lens as per the instructions guide. It is submitted that the opposite party therein cannot be mulcted with any liability for the improper and negligent act of the complainant in not following the proper precautions while using contact lenses.
The contact lenses supplied by the opposite party herein does not suffer from any manufacturing or other defects as alleged by the complainant. The averments of the complainant itself makes it clear that his condition has been caused due to a microbial infection; germs getting in the eye. The said infection is clearly caused due to improper usage, unhygienic of the contact lens and not due any manufacturing defects in the contact lens as alleged by the complainant.
It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or negligence from the part of this opposite party. The complainant is trying to mislead this Commission by suppressing his negligent act. The claims raised by the complainant against the opposite party is without any basis. The complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs sought for in the complaint against this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost to this opposite party.
3. Version filed by the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party has never made any advertisement specifically regarding Acuvue Vita Brand as 2nd opposite party are the dealers of many branded products of multiple manufacturers. All such allegations of complainant are nothing but a fictional creation. The complainant failed to attend his examination even on 21/8/2022 when the complainant only used the contact lens on 22/8/2022 and was subsequently taken to hospital on 23/8/2022 as per the contents of paragraph no. 7 of the complainant. This clearly shows that the complainant failed to attend the examinations due to his fault and is unscrupulously blaming 2nd opposite party by concocting a story. At the time of purchase, the optometrist at the store had categorically explained the instructions to use the lens to the complainant and a leaflet containing the said instructions was also enclosed within the packaging of the lens.
It is admitted that the complainant purchased 12 pairs of Acuvue Vita Brand’s contact lenses worth Rs.7,485/- from 2nd opposite party. It is denied that at the time of purchase, 2nd opposite party assured that the lens can be used for 23 hours. The optometrist at the store had categorically stated that during the first day, the lens should not be worn for more that 6-8 hours and that on day 2, the lens should not be worn more than 8-10 hours and that on day 3, the lens should not be worn for more then 10-12 house and on day 4, the lens should not be worn for more than 12-14 hours and from the fifth day onwards, the lens ought to be worn only during waking hours.
3. Points that arise for determination are as follows: -
1. whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as sought?
2. Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
3. Reliefs and costs?
4. The evidence of the complainant consists of oral as well as documentary evidence. The complainant was examined as PW1 and the doctor who treated Pw1 was examined as Pw2 and Exts. A1 to A16 and Mo1( 4 numbers)were marked. The 1st opposite party was examined as Rw1 and Exts. B1, B2 and Mo2 were marked. From the side of the 2nd opposite party Rw2& Rw3 were examined and Exts. B3 & B4 were marked. Both sides filed argument notes and heard the counsel for both sides.
5. Point Nos:- 1&2:-
The case of the complainant in a nuts shell is that the complainant is a 3rd year(5th semester) Engineering student. He is a studious and meritorious student and was eligible for the scholarship from the 1st semester itself. Ext.A5, the Certificate issued by the College showing the Eligibility for a Merit Scholarship. The normal fee per year of the course is Rs. 94000/-, out of which the scholarship amount of Rs. 40,000/- less and the complainant has to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 54000/- per year. To prove that Ext. A9 Fee receipt issued by the College was produced. Further averred that the complainant has short sight issues since his childhood. Therefore, as per the advice of the ophthalmologist, the power of the spectacle lens has to be changed from time to time. On 11.7.2022 the complainant purchased 12 pairs of Acuvue Vita Brand contact lenses of the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party for one year as each pair can be used for one month. Ext A1 is the Tax invoice for the lenses. Further averred that at the time of purchase, the 2nd opposite party promised that the lens could be used for 23 hours continuously. Following the instruction of the 2nd opposite party, the complainant used said lenses from 20.8.2022 onwards. The complainant alleged that on 22.8.2022 he used the contact lens and after 10 hours of use, his eyes felt irritations, redness, pain and itching. The next day he went to Alphonsa Eye Hospital, Pala and after examination and first aid, he was referred to Little Flower Hospital And Research Centre, Angamaly. From there, a detailed checkup was conducted on 24.8.2022 and diagnosed as “ Left Eye Microbial Keratitis”. The complainant alleges that it occurred due to the supply of defective contact lenses or the false instruction given by the 2nd opposite party regarding its usage which amounts to deficiency in service. The doctor opined that his condition was severe and even there was a risk of affecting the eyeball and was admitted for 5 days and treated in critical care for 24 hours. He was discharged on 29.8.2022 with advice for complete bed rest for 2 weeks. The Little Flower Hospital issued Ext.A2, treatment bill, A3, discharge summary and A4 Medical Certificate. The complainant alleged that due to the above situation, he was unable to attend certain papers in the 2nd-year 4th-semester examination which was scheduled on 21.8.2022, 26.8.2022 and 2.9.2022 respectively. So as per the criteria of the scholarship, he becomes permanently ineligible for further scholarship throughout the course. Exts A5 to A8 documents produced to substantiate said pleadings. In the above circumstances, the complainant approached this Commission and sought relief.
Opposite parties denied the allegations levelled against them and contended that the complainant used the lenses without following the instructions that was specifically communicated to the complainant by the 2nd opposite party at the time of purchase. Ext. B1 is the patient instruction guide and B2 is the package containing the wearing schedule and fitting instructions. The optometrist of the 2nd opposite party properly explained the use of the lenses but the complainant was irresponsible and negligent about it.
Admittedly, the complainant purchased the disputed contact lenses, supplied by the 1st opposite party, from the 2nd opposite party. The complainant alleged that after wearing the said lenses he suffered 'Microbial Keratitis' on his left eye which occurred due to the use of a defective contact lens supplied by the opposite parties and false instructions given by the opposite parties about the duration of using the lens. Now the question is whether the opposite parties committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for the supply of disputed lenses. The 1st opposite party advanced their argument that they have provided specific instructions for using the lenses but the complainant did not follow them. Moreover, the infection was caused solely due to improper, unclean usage of the contact lens. According to them, they have provided printed information inside the package and also provided Ext.B1, an instruction guide, which recommends the precautions to be followed by the users of the contact lenses. In Ext B2, the wearing schedule recommended the duration of the lens to be used. During cross-examination of Rw1, the 1st opposite party deposed that Ext. B1& B2 are the printouts taken from the website of them. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the complainant raised a specific question about whether when a patient purchases the product these documents are handed over to them(Q) who answered 'Yes' and further added that it is the duty of the retailer that has to provide these documents to the customer. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the second opposite party has no case that they supplied said documents to the complainant at the time of purchase. It seems that said opposite party pleaded in their version that at the time of purchase, the optometrist categorically explained the instructions about how to use the product and a leaflet containing the said instruction was also enclosed within the packaging of the lens. It is noted that the 2nd opposite party pleaded in their version “The optometrist at the store had categorically stated that during the first day, the lens should not be worn for more than 6-8 hours and that on day 2, the lens should not be worn more than 8-10 hours and that on day 3, the lens should not be worn for more than 10-12 hours and on day 4, the lens should not be worn for more than 12-14 hours and from the 5th day onwards, the lens ought to be worn only during waking hours.” Rw2, the manager of Opposite party No.2 deposed that they have given information to the customers with respect to the duration according to the leaflet and declaration provided by the company along with the product. Further, Rw3 stated that who had instructed the complainant as per the instruction manual accompanying with product in question. Both Rw1& Rw2 deposed that the duration of usage of the product mentioned in B1&B2 is not seen mentioned in Mo2, the printed instruction inside the packet. It is pointed out in the argument notes of the complainant that the 2nd opposite party failed to serve any instruction regarding wearing schedule to the complainant. Therefore, the 2nd opposite party has given the wrong information about the usage of the lens. Further invited our attention to the deposition of Pw2, the doctor, who treated the complainant at Little Flower Hospital Angamaly, deposed that excess duration/ time can cause Microbial Keratitis and also unhygienic use of contact lenses is the most common cause of Microbial Keratitis. The first opposite party stick on the instruction printed inside the package. According to them, the complainant is bound to go through said specific instruction provided which specifically mentioned the Patient instruction guide ( B1) and information on their website. This instruction guide recommends the precautions to be followed by the users. Opposite party No.2 pointed out in their argument notes about the deposition of PW1, who stated that he was following the oral instructions made by opposite party No.2 further he stated that he got instructions along with saline water. The said instruction has deliberately not been produced and adverse inference can be drawn. It is pertinent to note that said instruction concerns the usage of saline water and not for the duration of the contact lenses. Therefore, the said argument made by the 2nd opposite party is not warranted. Even though, both opposite parties vehemently argued that the lens can only be used for a fixed duration and they have provided the complainant the wearing schedule stating the duration. A perusal of the printed instructions on Mo2 nothing is stated about the safety precautions to be followed by a customer before wearing the contact lens. Pw1, the complainant deposed that nobody instructed him to wash his hands with soap before touching the lens. On going through the evidence we find that both opposite parties have differences of opinion about that, the 1st opposite party states that they have provided Ext. B1& B2 to its customers and the 2nd opposite party has to serve those instructions to the customers. Further, Rw1 admitted that said information(B1&B2) was taken from their system. The 2nd opposite party contended that their optometrist instructed the complainant regarding the duration for the usage of lenses and said duration mentioned in their version. Nothing is before us to corroborate said contention except the oral testimony of Rw3. The learned counsel for the 2nd opposite party argued that the complainant is an Engineering student he ought to have referred to the instructions from the given website. The very same contention was taken by the 1st opposite party in their version. It is pertinent to note that the product is manufactured and distributed not only for a specific customer but also for a large number of customers including common people. Therefore, the above contention taken by the opposite parties is not sustainable. Rw2 admitted that the instruction given by them was as per the information in the leaflet provided along with the lens. It seems that no such leaflet was provided by the 1st opposite party. From this, it can be seen that Rw2 did not even verify whether there was a leaflet with the product. From the above context, it can be seen that both opposite parties failed to give proper guidance to the complainant about the duration of use of the contact lenses. Pw2 categorically stated that the long duration of uses of the lens caused Microbial Keratitis. Moreover, opposite parties failed to prove that said infection caused due to the improper use of lenses or unhygienic use of lenses. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that this is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and attracted section 2(11)(1) and sec. 2(47)of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Sec.2(11) defines 'deficiency, reads as follows:
“ deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any services and includes.”
sec.2(11)(1) reads that “ any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer”.
It revealed that it is only possible to understand the usage methods of the lens by looking at the website of the 1st opposite party , which means that the 1st opposite party has not been able to make the most important information that should have been provided with the product available to the customers. As discussed earlier Ext.B1&B2 are printouts which are downloaded from the website of the 1st opposite party and were not handed over to the complainant. Further, it is found that there is no leaflet stating the usage, inside the packet of the contact lenses as stated by the 2nd opposite party. It seems that the 2nd opposite party failed to convince us that their staff had given proper advice concerning the duration of use of the contact lenses. Moreover, Ext.B3 document shows that the trial was conducted with another brand of the product by the name 'ousysis'. The learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the said product and the disputed product are two different products. The above conduct of the 2nd opposite party shows that they did not give proper attention in handling their customer. For the above-discussed reasons, it can be held that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service as stated in the above section under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 “Seller is also a manufacturer of the product, therefore both parties are responsible for deficiency in service.” Even though the complainant alleged one of the reasons for his eye infection was due to the supply of defective contact lenses, the complainant failed to prove said allegation . The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the 2nd opposite party did not deny in their version the allegation of defective lens supplied by them. It is not correct since both opposite parties pleaded in their version that they were not provided defective lenses to the complainant.
On perusal of Ext. A5 Certificate issued by the Principal, ST. Joseph's College of Engineering revealed that the complainant has a good academic background since he was admitted to B- Tech under Merit Quota with Merit scholarship (category-2) during the academic year 2020-2021. Ext. A6 terms and conditions of the scholarship for the term of 2020-2024 issued from the above college, which mentioned that student shall satisfy the six conditions for continuation of the scholarship in the next semester. One of the above conditions stipulate that if a student fails in any course in a semester the student will have to refund the scholarship availed in that semester . As per the records, it appears that during the period of complainant's hospitalization, he could not attend three papers in the fourth-semester examinations. To substantiate the above Ext.A8 attested copy of the 4th semester Examination timetable produced by the complainant. During cross-examination of Pw1, who deposed that there is a mistake found in the complaint about the examination date and there was no examination on 21.8.2022. On perusal of the supporting document Ext.A8 it seems that the examination of the complainant was scheduled on 26.8.2022, 31.8.2022 and 2.9.2022 respectively. As per Ext.A3 Discharge summary issued from the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly the complainant was admitted there on 24.8.2022 and discharged on 29.8.2022 and Ext.A4, medical certificate issued by Pw2, the doctor who treated the complainant was advised him for two weeks rest. On perusal of the evidence, it appears that during the said period pw1 was hospitalized and thereafter he was on rest and could not attend his semester exams. The above discussed reasons, it is to be noted that due to the negligent attitude of the opposite parties the complainant’s eligibility for scholarship itself is remained uncertain. It can be seen that the complainant well proved his part with sufficient evidence. In the above situation, it is proved beyond doubt, due to the negligent act of opposite parties the complainant suffered unbearable mental agony. So this is a clear case of deficiency in service and both opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. Moreover opposite parties are liable to refund the price of the disputed lenses as per Ext. A1 and the amount covered under the medical bill ( A2)to the complainant
6. Point. No. 3:-
In the result the complaint is allowed in part and direct as follows:
- Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only ), being the compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @9% p. a from the date of complaint, 5.01.2023 till realization.
- Both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs. 7,485/-(Rupees Seven thousand four hundred and eighty five only )being the price of the contact lenses and refund the medical bill Rs. 6,474/-(Rupees Six thousand four hundred and seventy four only) along with interest at the rate of 9% p. a from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant.
- Both opposite parties are jointly and severally reliable to pay Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only )towards litigation costs to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 31st day of January, 2024.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/- Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Jithin Jerome (Complainant)
PW2 - Dr. Dand Pudukadan(witness)
Ext.A1 - Original Bill issued by Lens &Frames dtd. 11/7/2022
Ext.A2 - Discharge Summary
Ext.A3 - Treatment Bill issued by Little Flower Hospital
Ext.A4 - Medical Certificate
Ext.A5 - Certificate dtd. 31/3/2023
Ext.A6 - Terms & Conditions (St. Joseph’s College)
Ext.A7 - Course List
Ext.A8 - Notification
Ext.A9 - Receipt
Ext.A10 - Copy of Legal Notice
Ext.A11 - Postal Receipt
Ext.A12 - Postal Receipt
Ext.A13 - Postal Receipt
Ext.A14 - Postal Receipt
Ext.A15 - Reply Notice
Ext.A16 - Reply Notice (2nd OP)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sandya Baiju (witness)
RW2 - Shajimon (Witness)
RW3 - Arya.M(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Patient Instruction Guide
Ext.B2 - Printout
Ext.B3 - Copy of extracts of demo.
Ext.B4 - Copy of booking register of contact lens
Ext.B5 - Letter of Authority for Authorized Signatory
Ext.B6 - Employment Certificate.
MO1 series - Product (Contact Lense)
MO2 - File
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:- Assistant Registrar
