BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No.204/2004 Filed on 14/05/2004

Dated: 16..11..2009

Complainant:

Bindhu, Bindhu Bhavan, Adikalam, Kovilloor, Vellarada-P.O .

(By Adv. Dougles Linsby. N.R)

Opposite party:

Latha, Aswathy Medical Store, Sreela Building, Anappara, Vellarada – P.O.

(By Adv. R. Vijayakumaran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 29..10..2009, the Forum on 16..11..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

This is a complaint filed by one Miss. Bindhu against the opposite party alleging as follows: The complainant who was suffering from Graves Hyperthyroidism was consulted by a Senior consultant Physician Endocrionologist & Diabetologist Dr. Jayakumar, on 12/12/2002. The doctor prescribed medicines inter alia tab-PTU (50mg) to consume 6 each twice. The complainant came to the opposite party's medical store and showed the doctor's prescription for purchasing the medicines as prescribed. The opposite party instead of giving the PTU (50 mg) as prescribed by the doctor, gave the complainant Eltroxin without any authority or prescription of the doctor concerned. The complainant is a poor and illiterate lady and consumed the tablets under the impression that the medicines supplied by the opposite party are all prescribed by the doctor. After the consumption of the said medicine Eltroxin tablets, the illness of the complainant has aggravated and increased which constrained the complainant to treat further not only for the disease for which the complainant was undergoing treatment, but also for the repercussions due to the consumption of unauthorised tablets issued by the opposite party. Now the complainant is undergoing treatment for the ailment resulted by the consumption of Eltroxin tablets unauthorisedly supplied by the opposite party. All these unhappy things happened solely due to the unauthorised supply of Eltroxin tablets by the opposite party from the medical store. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant along with costs.

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That this opposite party has never sold any medicine without a prescription and does not have any business with the complainant. That this opposite party was always careful enough to give medicine only according to the prescription shown by the customers and had never substituted one medicine for another. The statement regarding her poor health is not genuine and is to be put to strict proof. All the allegations against this opposite party are false and hence denied. Such a false story has been cooked by the complainant on the instigation of the business rivals of the locality. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Opposite party has also filed their affidavit, opposite party has no documentary evidence.

4. From the contentions raised, the issues to be decided are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief claimed for?

5. Points (i) & (ii): The case of the complainant is that she has been given the medicine Eltroxin by the opposite party instead of PTV (50 mg) as prescribed by the doctor. The complainant further alleges that the consumption of the same adversely affected the complainant's physical and mental health. The opposite party has totally denied the allegations levelled against them and they have contended that they have never sold any medicine without prescription and they have no business with the complainant.

6. Ext.P1 is the prescription of Dr. B. Jayakumar seen issued to the complainant. Ext.P2 is the cash bill alleged to be issued by the opposite party. The complainant as PW1 has deposed that "12/12/2002 - ല്‍ ഞാന്‍ ddoctor നെ കാണാന്‍ പോയപ്പോള്‍ അച്ഛനും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. Doctor – നെ കണ്ടതിന്‍റെ പിറെറ ദിവസം ആണ് മരുന്ന് വാങ്ങിയത്. ഞാന്‍ തന്നെയാണ് വാങ്ങിയത്. മരുന്ന് കഴിച്ച് അസ്വസ്ഥത തോന്നി തുടങ്ങി. പിറെറ ദിവസം മുതല്‍ വെപ്രാളം തുടങ്ങി. "Ext. P1 is dated 12/12/2002 and Ext.P2 is dated 27/12/2002. When the complainant deposed that she has purchased the medicine the very next day after consulting the doctor, it has to be supported by cogent evidence. Hence, as per the cash bill it is clear that the medicines have been purchased after about 15 days from the date of prescription. The complainant alleges that she started consuming the medicines from the next day of 12/12/2002. From the above, it could be concluded without any doubt that the complainant has failed to establish her allegtions against the opposite party. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that she had purchased medicine from the opposite party on 12/12/2002 or 13/12/2002. From the deposition of the complainant itself it is clear that she has again visited the doctor only on 27/12/2002 ie., after all the discomforts she had due to the alleged consumption of medicines and Ext.P2 is issued after her second visit to the doctor.

7. In view of the above discussion, we find that the complaint is only to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to establish the allegations levelled against the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

OO.P.No. 204/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Bindhu

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Prescription dated 12/12/2002

P2 : Cash bill No.A 1133 dated 27/12/2002 for Rs.330/62.

P3 : Medical Certificate dated 24/5/03 issued by Dr. B. Jayakumar.

P4 : Copy of advocate notice issued to opp.party.

P5 : Postal receipt

P6 : Acknowledgment card addressed to opp.party

P7 : Reply notice dated 28/6/03 issued to the complainant's counsel.

III. Opposite party's witness : NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL

PRESIDENT

ad.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No.204/2004 Filed on 14/05/2004

Dated: 16..11..2009

Complainant:

Bindhu, Bindhu Bhavan, Adikalam, Kovilloor, Vellarada-P.O .

(By Adv. Dougles Linsby. N.R)

Opposite party:

Latha, Aswathy Medical Store, Sreela Building, Anappara, Vellarada – P.O.

(By Adv. R. Vijayakumaran Nair)

This O.P having been heard on 29..10..2009, the Forum on 16..11..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

This is a complaint filed by one Miss. Bindhu against the opposite party alleging as follows: The complainant who was suffering from Graves Hyperthyroidism was consulted by a Senior consultant Physician Endocrionologist & Diabetologist Dr. Jayakumar, on 12/12/2002. The doctor prescribed medicines inter alia tab-PTU (50mg) to consume 6 each twice. The complainant came to the opposite party's medical store and showed the doctor's prescription for purchasing the medicines as prescribed. The opposite party instead of giving the PTU (50 mg) as prescribed by the doctor, gave the complainant Eltroxin without any authority or prescription of the doctor concerned. The complainant is a poor and illiterate lady and consumed the tablets under the impression that the medicines supplied by the opposite party are all prescribed by the doctor. After the consumption of the said medicine Eltroxin tablets, the illness of the complainant has aggravated and increased which constrained the complainant to treat further not only for the disease for which the complainant was undergoing treatment, but also for the repercussions due to the consumption of unauthorised tablets issued by the opposite party. Now the complainant is undergoing treatment for the ailment resulted by the consumption of Eltroxin tablets unauthorisedly supplied by the opposite party. All these unhappy things happened solely due to the unauthorised supply of Eltroxin tablets by the opposite party from the medical store. Therefore, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant along with costs.

2. The opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: That this opposite party has never sold any medicine without a prescription and does not have any business with the complainant. That this opposite party was always careful enough to give medicine only according to the prescription shown by the customers and had never substituted one medicine for another. The statement regarding her poor health is not genuine and is to be put to strict proof. All the allegations against this opposite party are false and hence denied. Such a false story has been cooked by the complainant on the instigation of the business rivals of the locality. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Complainant has filed affidavit and has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P7. Opposite party has also filed their affidavit, opposite party has no documentary evidence.

4. From the contentions raised, the issues to be decided are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief claimed for?

5. Points (i) & (ii): The case of the complainant is that she has been given the medicine Eltroxin by the opposite party instead of PTV (50 mg) as prescribed by the doctor. The complainant further alleges that the consumption of the same adversely affected the complainant's physical and mental health. The opposite party has totally denied the allegations levelled against them and they have contended that they have never sold any medicine without prescription and they have no business with the complainant.

6. Ext.P1 is the prescription of Dr. B. Jayakumar seen issued to the complainant. Ext.P2 is the cash bill alleged to be issued by the opposite party. The complainant as PW1 has deposed that "12/12/2002 - ല്‍ ഞാന്‍ ddoctor നെ കാണാന്‍ പോയപ്പോള്‍ അച്ഛനും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. Doctor – നെ കണ്ടതിന്‍റെ പിറെറ ദിവസം ആണ് മരുന്ന് വാങ്ങിയത്. ഞാന്‍ തന്നെയാണ് വാങ്ങിയത്. മരുന്ന് കഴിച്ച് അസ്വസ്ഥത തോന്നി തുടങ്ങി. പിറെറ ദിവസം മുതല്‍ വെപ്രാളം തുടങ്ങി. "Ext. P1 is dated 12/12/2002 and Ext.P2 is dated 27/12/2002. When the complainant deposed that she has purchased the medicine the very next day after consulting the doctor, it has to be supported by cogent evidence. Hence, as per the cash bill it is clear that the medicines have been purchased after about 15 days from the date of prescription. The complainant alleges that she started consuming the medicines from the next day of 12/12/2002. From the above, it could be concluded without any doubt that the complainant has failed to establish her allegtions against the opposite party. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that she had purchased medicine from the opposite party on 12/12/2002 or 13/12/2002. From the deposition of the complainant itself it is clear that she has again visited the doctor only on 27/12/2002 ie., after all the discomforts she had due to the alleged consumption of medicines and Ext.P2 is issued after her second visit to the doctor.

7. In view of the above discussion, we find that the complaint is only to be dismissed as the complainant has miserably failed to establish the allegations levelled against the opposite party.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 16^th day of November, 2009.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

OO.P.No. 204/2004

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Bindhu

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Prescription dated 12/12/2002

P2 : Cash bill No.A 1133 dated 27/12/2002 for Rs.330/62.

P3 : Medical Certificate dated 24/5/03 issued by Dr. B. Jayakumar.

P4 : Copy of advocate notice issued to opp.party.

P5 : Postal receipt

P6 : Acknowledgment card addressed to opp.party

P7 : Reply notice dated 28/6/03 issued to the complainant's counsel.

III. Opposite party's witness : NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL

PRESIDENT