Date of filing: 08.03.2019
Date of disposal: 27.02.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.10/2019
THIS MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
Mr.G.Christudass, S/o.A.George,
No.1, Thirumurugan Nagar,
2nd Street, Porur, Chennai 116. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.Med Plus Pharmacy,
(A Unit of Optival Health Solutions Private Limited),
Rep. by its Managing Director,
No.60, Arcot Road, Porur 116.
2.M/s.BYBY Heahth Care,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Survey. No.333/1, 334/1, 335/1B2,
Chennai to Bangalore Highway,
Near Sav Petrol Bunk,
Kalanipakkam Village, Vellore 635 809. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.R.Gokulraj, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : M/s.J.H.Batcha,Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : M/s.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.02.2023 in the presence of M/s.R.Gokulraj counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.V.Pravin Rathinam, counsel for the 2nd opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties that they had sold fraudulently time expired medicines to the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to refund Rs.450/- to the complainant together with the penalty at the rate of Rs.200/- per day from 20.07.2018 to till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Summary of the facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he had purchased 10 units of Multivitamin Tablet from the 1st opposite party on 20.07.2018 manufactured by the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.450/- and the batch number appended on the tablet was MM1610. When the complainant noted the cover on the tablet he was shocked to see that the validity of the tablets which was supplied got expired on June 2018 itself. Immediately the next day, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party to return the expired tablet. However, the pharmacist and the staffs in the 1st opposite party’s pharmacy refused to accept the return of medicine. Though the complainant insisted them to refund the money the same was refused and was treated in an undignified manner which caused great mental distress to the complainant. The opposite parties were well aware that the medicines which become spurious after the period of expiry would cause serious health hazards which may even take away the life. The complainant wrote a letter to the 1st opposite party seeking immediate action on 09.10.2018 but he did not take any steps in this regard. The 2nd opposite party was the manufacturer of the medicine in issue was also liable for the same as the medicines are expired. The sale of spurious drug and the 1st opposite party‘s refusal to refund the amount paid toward the purchase of such spurious medicine amounts to poor deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant and to refund Rs.450/- to the complainant together with the penalty at the rate of Rs.200/- per day from 20.07.2018 to till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party was a reputed concern involved in the business of sales of medicinal products to its prospective customers. It is true that the complainant purchased Multigates Multi Vitamin tablet with batch No.MM1610. But the allegation that when he noticed the cover on the tablet it showed as if the validity of the tablets got expired on June 2018 itself was absolutely false. The bill submitted by the complainant before this commission would clearly show the batch number of the medicine sold to the complainant as well as its validity date. The bill date 20.07.2018 under which the medicine and the child diapers were sold to the complainant by the 1st opposite party clearly shows that the batch number of the medicine that was sold to the complainant is MM 1610 and its validity period was till September 2018. Thus the medicine sold to the complainant had two months validity period from the date of sale. Being so, the allegation of the complainant that the drug that was expired on June 2018 was sold to him by the 1st opposite party was absolutely false. The tablet cover that was filed by the complainant was not that the batch of medicine that was sold by them to the complainant on 20.07.2018. The said tablet cover shows it was of batch number MM 1606 was valid till June 2018, which was not the batch of medicine that was sold by the 1st opposite party to the complainant on 20.07.2018. They never sell any expired or low quality medicine to any of their customers. As the medicine purchased by the complainant was purchased as per daughter’s doctor advice, when the medicine was sold within its validity period and the complainant has the medicine with him, he cannot claim for any refund and there is no deficiency in service and no unfair trade practice on their part and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd oppostie party:-
The 2nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complaint has been filed only with the mala fide intention to extract money from the opposite parties, who hold great reputation and good will. It was submitted that it was a well known manufacturer of medicinal and pharmaceutical products in the State of Tamil Nadu. Products of the 2nd opposite party were distributed in the market after obtaining inter-alia the mandatory approval from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. It was the manufacturer of Multivitamins and Minerals Tablets named “MULTIGATES MULTI”. The tablets were distributed to the retail outlets such as the 1st opposite party by the 2nd opposite party in batches and the table strip provides inter-alia for the details of the batch number, manufacture date and its best before usage period of consumption. The complainant in his complainant has pointed that he had purchased one strip of “MULTIGATES MULTI” tablet reflecting batch No. MM1610 from the 1st opposite party on 20.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.450/- and further he has filed the copy of the invoice dated 20.07.2018 raised by the 1st opposite party which invoice also confirms the batch number of the tablet to be MM 1610'. The 2nd opposite Party vehemently denies the Complainant's averment that the said tablet got expired in June, 2018 itself as the said tablet in batch No.MM 1610 was manufactured in October 2016 and was best to be used before 24 months from the date of Manufacture i.e. October 2018. Therefore as on the date of purchase of the tablet i.e. 20.07.2018, the tablet did not get expired and was valid to be consumed till October 2018. The 2nd opposite Party denies the averments made in the complaint by the Complainant as baseless and untenable and submits that the frivolous nature of the Complainant and his mala-fide intention to unjustly enrich himself is well established from the photocopy of the tablet cover and strip filed by him with regard to a different batch No.MM 1606 instead of the purchased tablet with batch No.MM 1610.It is pertinent to state that Batch No.MM 1606 was manufactured in June, 2016 and was best to be used before June, 2018, while the sold tablet with Batch No. MM 1610 was best to be used till October, 2018. Both the invoice and the complaint as against the tablet cover and strip filed by the Complainant proves his frivolous attempt to extract money from the Opposite Parties by causing mental agony and losses to their business by tarnishing their reputation and good will. When no such tablet which was allegedly claimed to have been expired was sold to the Complainant, the question of refunding the amount itself does not arise and further the 2nd Opposite Party was not liable to the Complainant in any manner as alleged by him and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were marked. On the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 was marked on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the complaint allegations that the opposite parties had sold fraudulently time expired medicines to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service was proved by the complainant successfully by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Pharmacy bill dated 20.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Photocopy of the tablet strip was marked as Ex.A2;
Photocopy of the strip cover was marked as Ex.A3;
Email sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 03.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
On the side of 2nd opposite party the following document was filed in support of their defence;
Tablet cover and strip bearing batch No.MM1610 was marked as Ex.B1;
Inspite of providing sufficient opportunities the complainant did not file any written arguments and hence the written arguments stage on the side of complainant was closed. On the side of opposite parties written arguments was filed by both opposite parties. But no oral argument was adduced by 1st opposite party. It is represented by the 2nd opposite party that the written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and hence this Commission considered the written arguments filed by the 2nd opposite party as oral arguments to dispose the case on merits.
The crux of the arguments advanced by the complainant is that he had purchased multivitamin tablets from the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party on 20.07.2018. However, the tablets supplied to him belongs to the batch MM1606 though in the bill it was found as MM 1610.Thus stating that spurious drug which had already been expired was sold to him he alleges deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties and sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the written arguments submitted by the 1st opposite party stated that the batch number of the medicine sold to the complainant was MM1610 which has validity till 30.09.2018 and not the medicine containing batch No.MM1606 as alleged by the complainant. Thus it is stated that they did not commit any deficiency in service and sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The 2nd opposite party argued that they being the manufacturers sell the tablets through retail outlets such as the 1st opposite party and the tablets strips provide the batch number, manufacturing date, Best before usage period for consumption. He also reiterates the contention that the batch number sold was only MM1610 which has validity till October 2018. They denied that the batch number MM1606 as exhibited by the complainant was not the medicine sold by the 1st opposite party. Thus stating that the complaint was a frivolous one sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials though the complainant had mentioned in the complaint that he had purchased medicine with batch number MM1610, he had produced the strip supplied to him as Ex.A2 which clearly shows that the batch number was MM1606 manufactured in June 2016. If the defence raised by the opposite parties is accepted, there is no necessity for the complainant to come up with a complaint before this commission. It is the usual practice that the buyers did not note the batch number at the time of purchase but only the name of medicine. In such practice the complainant also ought to have received the tablets. It is the fault on the part of the 1st opposite party to have supplied the expired tablets containing different batch number. Being the manufacturer the 2nd opposite party ought to have prevented the same by taking back the expired medicine or to see that they are not sold but destroyed. If the opposite parties alleges that the batch number sold to the complainant was not that one produced before this commission they would have produced the ledger to show that which batch was sold to him. Further it is not the case of the 2nd opposite party that they did not supply the medicine with batch number MM1606 to the 1st opposite party. If at all MM1606 was not sold as alleged by the opposite parties to the complainant they ought to have produced evidence to show that it was sold to somebody else and not to the complainant at an earlier point of time. In such facts and circumstances in the absence of any evidence by opposite parties, the version of the complainant has to be believed and this commission comes to a conclusion that the opposite parties had supplied fradulently a medicine with different batch number which had already expired and thereby committed deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly holding that both the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service to the complainant and the complainant had successfully proved the same.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service we direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.450/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further we award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties 1 & 2
a) To refund a sum of Rs.450/- (Rupees four hundred fifty only) to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 9% will be levied on the said amount from date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th day of February 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 20.07.2018 Pharmacy Bill original
Ex.A2 ............. Photocopy of the tablet cover. Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Photocopy of the strip cover. Xerox
Ex.A4 ................ Email sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Xerox
List of document filed the 2nd opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............ Tablet cover and strip bearing batch No.MM1610. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
