45.....30.03.2021.....
Ld. Advocate for the complainant is present.
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Fibal order containing 5 pages is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open commission.
It is ordered that,
ORDERED
That the Complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 without cost and dismissed against the rest without cost. The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service by 60 days on the date of the order.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.NO. 07 OF 2017
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
10.01.2017 24.01.2017 30.03.2021
Present : President : Asish Kumar Senapati
Member : Jagdish Chandra Barman
COMPLAINANT : 1. Mohammad Ali Purkait, S/O- MD. Hanifa Purkait, Abdul Mannan Laskar Madrat Masjid Para, P.O.-Madarat, P.S.-Baruipur, Pin-743610.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Manager, Frank Ross Pharmacy, (A division of Emami Frank Ross Ltd.) 31/A, Kulpi Road, P.S. Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144.
2. Director, Institute of Reproduction Medicine, HB – 36/A/3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700 106.
3. Dr. Gautam Naskar, S. Haque Nursing Home, Padmapukur, P.O.+P.S. – Baruipur, Pin- 700 144.
Sri Asish Kumar Senapati, President
This is a consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
One Mohammad Ali Purkait (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed the case against the Manager, Frank Ross Pharmacy and 2 others (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps), praying for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. for negligence on the part of the O.Ps.
The sum and substance of the complaint is as follows:
The complainant and his wife Nuri Purkait were under treatment at the Institute of Reproductive Medicine and on 27.06.2016 the complainant was prescribed the medicine namely “CONCOVA-M” for 3 months. On 16.07.2016 the complainant handed over this prescription to the OP No.1 for supply of medicine on payment of price. The petitioner under presumption that he was not diagnosed properly and decided to change the Doctor and after that he consulted Docotor at S. Haque Nursing Home. Dr. Gautam Naskar attached with the said Nursing Home informed the applicant that the medicine which was prescribed and the medicine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 on 16.07.2016 was not the same. He informed that the O.P. No. 1 supplied “CONCOR-AM 2.5” in lieu of “CONCOVA-M”. Then the complainant lodged a complaint at the Baruipur PS on 15.09.2016 and sent a legal notice asking for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 12.09.2016. The cause of action arose on 16.07.2016. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @18% p.a. against the O.Ps. The O.P. No. 1 contest the case by filing W.V. on 03.04.2017 contending that the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable as the complainant has no cause of action. The O.P. No. 1 has stated that the facts narrated in the complaint are incorrect. The O.P. No. 1 denied the fact that the O.P. No. 1 supplied different medicine which was mentioned in the prescription. It is asserted that the O.P. No. 1 supplied medicine on the strength of a prescription issued by Dr. B. Chakraborty, but the prescription supplied by the complainant before the Forum is not the prescription of Dr. B. Chakraborty. It is asserted that the so called prescription dated 27.06.2016 filed by the complainant does not appear the name of the doctor. The O.P. No. 1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The O.P. No. 2 filed W.V. on 22.12.2017 contending that the complainant was examined by Dr. Gita Ganguly Mukherjee on 27.06.2016 and prescribed a medicine namely “CONCOVA-M” one dose daily for 3 months. The O.P. No. 2 is not otherwise related with the matter.
The O.P. No. 1 also files additional W.V. on 23.12.2019.
On the basis of the above versions, the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :-
- Is the complainant a consumer under the provisions of C.P Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum/Commission jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No. 1?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any order against the O.Ps, as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point nos. 1 & 2:-
The Ld. Advocate for the complainant submits that the complainant is the consumer as he purchased medicine from the O.P. No. 1 on payment of consideration and this forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
We have gone through the materials on record and considered the submission of both sides. The complainant has alleged that the O.P. No. 1 supplied wrong medicine against the prescription dated 27.06.2016. We find that the claimed amount is within pecuniary limit of this Forum/Commission and the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum / Commission. Hence, we hold that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of the provision of the C.P. Act, 1986 and this Forum / Commission has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Point nos. 3 & 4:-
It is the allegation of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that the complainant purchased medicine from the O.P. No. 1 on payment on 16.07.2016 on the strength of the prescription dated 27.06.2016. The O.P. No. 1 has alleged that the medicines supplied on 16.07.2016 was on the strength of a prescription of Dr B. Chakraborty. But the prescription dated 27.06.2016 was not the prescription of B. Chakraborty. The complainant has filed a certificate issued by Dr. B. Chakraborty, Director, Institute of Reproductive Medicine dated 25.04.2017 stating that Dr. Gita Ganguly Mukherjee examined the complainant on 27.06.2016. The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted that the complainant handed over the prescription to the O.P. No. 1 for purchase of the medicine and stated the name of Dr. B. Chakraborty which had been written the bill dated 16.07.2016. On perusal of the bill dated 16.07.2016 issued by the O.P. No. 1, We find that the another medicine namely Aresthozyme was also supplied against the prescription of Dr. D. Chakraborty. We find that the complainant has asserted that the prescription dated 27.06.2016 was the prescription given to the O.P. No. 1 for supply of medicine. It is the version of the complainant that he felt un-comfort after consuming medicine supplied by O.P. No. 1 and ultimately consulted with the doctor at S. Haque Nursing Home on 10.08.2016. The complainant has asserted that handed over the prescription of Dr. Gita Ganguly Mukherjee to the O.P. No. 1 for purchase of ‘CONCOVA-M’. But it appears from the bill dated 16.07.2016 that the O.P. No. 1 supplied 2 medicines namely, Aristozyme and concor AM 2.5 on the basis of a prescription . The Ld. Advocate for the complainant has asserted that the medicine Aristozyme was purchased by the complainant for indigestion. The name of the medicine in the prescription dated 27.06.2016 of Dr. Gita Ganguly Mukherjee is not properly legible. There is no diagnosis noted in the prescription and the medicine prescribed by him is not clearly legible. The O.P. No. 1 has supplied medicine on 16.07.2016 which is not prescribed in the prescription on 27.06.2016 may be due to fact that the name of the medicine was not properly legible. There is no expert opinion to come to the conclusion as to whether the medicine “CONCOVA-AM 2.5 mg” had any adverse effect to health of the complainant .
But we are inclined to believe the statement of the complainant that the O.P. No. 1 supplied wrong medicine on the strength of the prescription dated 27.06.2016. We think that the O.P. No. 1 should be cautious for supplying any medicine to a customer and if the name of the medicine was not legible the customer may be advised to get it legible or typed in the prescription duly signed by the Dr. On a careful consideration, we think that the complainant has failed to establish that the medicine supplied by the O.P. No. 1 had any adverse effect to health of the complainant . We think that the O.P. No. 1 supplied the medicine to the complainant probably as the name of the medicine was not properly legible in the prescription dated 27.06.2016. In our considered opinion the O.P. No. 1 has deficiency in service as the medicine supplied to the complainant was not the same as per prescription dated 27.06.2016. We think that the mistake of the O.P. tantamount to deficiency in service.
Hence, the O.P. No. 1 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service.
In the result, the case succeeds in part.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the Complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 without cost and dismissed against the rest without cost. The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service by 60 days on the date of the order.
Let copies of final order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per rules.
The Final order also be made available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and corrected by me
