Punjab

Sangrur

CC/635/2017

Pritam Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mahabir Medicose - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Udit Goyal

18 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 635                                                                                      

                                                                     Instituted on:  01.12.2017                                                                                              

                                                                    Decided on:    18.04.2018

 

Pritam Kaur wife of Sadhu Singh resident of village Palasaur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.  

 

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

 

1.       Mahabir Medicose, Inside Mittal Health Care, Near Sh. Vijayinder Singla MLA Residence, Haripura Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partner.

 

2.       Mittal Health Care, Near Sh. Vijayinder Singla MLA Residence, Haripura Road, Sangrur through Dr. Gaurav Mittal, MBBS, MD ( Medicine).

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Udit Goyal  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :        Shri Amit Bhalla,  Advocate

 

 

Quorum

                            

 

Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

 

1.             Pritam Kaur, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she is suffering from T2DM-HTN-CAD problem and is getting treatment from OP no.2. The OP no.2 prescribed some medicines to the complainant and wrote the same on its letter head and told the complainant to purchase the said medicines from OP no.1.  The OP no.1 issued an invoice no.478 dated 11.09.2017 to the complainant. The son of the complainant checked the medicines and found that one of the medicines namely Mascart Beta 50mg was of expiry date, as the manufacturing date of the said medicine is 09/2015 and same was expired on 08/2017 which clearly shows that the OP no.1 selling the expiry date medicines to the general public which is illegal and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP no.1. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP no.1, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP no.1 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.309/- charged by them alongwith  interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

 

ii)     OP no.1 be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and  to pay Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP no.1,  It is stated that the OP no.1  issued a bill for the batch  No.PHUAP10 for Macsart Beta 50, Macsart 25 is having batch No.PHUAR07 and the same is mentioned on the said bill dated 11.09.2017.  It is stated that the medicine which was produced by the complainant is having batch number PHUAP02 and same is physician sample and is not for sale. The said medicine has not been sold by the OP to the complainant.  When the OP not sold the above said batch number medicine to the complainant then the question to approach the OP does not arise at all.  Moreover, the medicine which was purchased by the OP no.1 is having the expiry date as 12/2018. The complainant produced the medicine   was not sold by the OP no.1 as the said medicine  is having different batch number  and was a physician sample.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OP no.2, it is submitted that on 11.09.2017 the complainant got herself medically checked up from the OP no.2  and in this regard  OP no.2 prescribed  some medicines  to the complainant.  It is wrong the OP no. told the complainant to purchase the said medicines from OP no.1.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed evidence.

 

5.             The complainant has purchased medicines from OP no.1 as prescribed by the OP no.2 on 11.09.2017 as evident from Ex.C-3. The complainant's grievance is that one of the medicine namely Macsart  Beta 50mg sold by the OP no.1 is having expiry date 8/2017.  Moreover, it is a physician's sample i.e. Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. In rebut the OP has stated in reply and affidavit that  he has not sold the medicine as alleged by the complainant  in her complaint as tablet  strip  produced  by the complainant has different batch  number from the medicines sold by the OP No.1. To prove this, he has exhibited OP-3 and OP-4 in which he has purchased medicines in question having batch number PHUAP10 with expiry date 12/2018 but the tablet pack having batch number PHUAP10 is not produced on the file by the OP no.1 despite directions by the Forum. After perusal of the documents we come to know that there are two different documents on the file one is Ex.C-3 and other is Ex.C-4. Ex.C-3 has unit/ UQC number (unit quantity code) UAP10. On the other hand, Ex.C-4 has batch number PHUAP02 instead of UQC number UAP10. Both are different words having different meanings and used for different purposes.  Moreover expiry date is not mentioned in Ex.C-3 as mentioned in Ex.OP-3 and Ex.OP-4. So, we do not agree to the contention of OP no.1 that both documents Ex.C-3& Ex.C-4 have different batch number and the tablet pack purchased by the complainant having batch number PHUAP02  is not sold by the OP no.1. As such we find that OP no.1 has sold the medicine as alleged by the complainant.

 

6.             We feel that expiry date medicine sold by the OP no.1 if  consumed by the complainant for long could  be dangerous for  the health of the complainant. So, the OP no.1 is deficient and negligent  in rendering the service to  the complainant  and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the OP no.1 is directed to refund  an amount of Rs.309/-  as cost of tablet pack in question as well as to deposit an amount of Rs.10000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained in this Forum and further the OP  no.1 is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and litigation expenses.        

 

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                April 18, 2018

 

 

 

                 (Vinod Kumar Gulati)       ( Sarita Garg )                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 Member                                                 Presiding Member