By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs.34,281/- being the consulting fee, cost of medicines and other expenses met by the complainant with 12% interest per annum from 11.10.2012 till realization and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant.
2. The complainant's case in brief as follows:- Being the neighbour of complainant, the 1st Opposite Party introduced the 2nd Opposite Party to theComplainant for treatment to complainant's son who suffers psoriasis disease. So the Complainant agreed to treat his son with the 2nd Opposite Party and in the presence of 1st and 2nd Opposite Party, the treatment expenses were fixed as Rs.30,000/-. The treatment charted from 11.10.2012 with assurance to cure the Psoriasis disease within 6 months and the Opposite Party received Rs.10,000/- on the same day in the presence of 1st Opposite Party as advance. Then the 2nd Opposite Party started treatment but the disease were not cured and on enquiry it is understood that the 2nd Opposite Party is not qualified for treatment of Psoriasis. After starting the treatment of 2nd Opposite Party, the disease became in acute stage instead of curing due to the negligence of Opposite Parties. Hence this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of 1st Opposite Party, the 1st Opposite Party stated that 2nd Opposite Party is a doctor who treated the son of Complainant and is introduced by him to the complainant. The 1st Opposite Party further stated that and the 2nd Opposite Party visited the house of complainant and explained about treatment and assured to cure the disease. But 1st Opposite Party deposed before the Forum that the 1st Opposite party did not know the money transaction between the complainant and 2nd Opposite Party The 2nd Opposite Party filed version and stated that the Complainant's son was treated at the Shanthi Ayurvedic Hospital, Malapuram as an out patient from 11.10.2012. At the time of admission the Hospital authorities has collected an amount of Rs.100/- only as registration fees and consultation fees. 2nd Opposite Party states that 2nd Opposite Party has not collected Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. The allegation that the treatment expense is fixed as Rs.30,000/- is also denied. The Hospital authorities has collected only expense for the medicines thereafter and never collected any consultation fee from the patient. Then the patient was directed to undergo treatment as an inpatient but as per the insistence of Complainant, the patient was treated as out patient. Along with medicine compatible food and way of life is very important in Ayurvedic treatment. Due to the treatment of Opposite Party psoriasis has reduced much. The patient came to the hospital on 27.04.2013 finally and at that time he was having psoriasis only at shoulder, chest region and he was directed to take medicine for 15 days every day and was directed to report for review thereafter. But the patient never turned up thereafter, and other allegation in the complaint are denied by the 2nd Opposite Party.
4. On perusing the complaint, documents, version of Opposite Parties, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. What order as to costs and compensation?
5. Point No.1:- In addition to complaint, the Complainant filed proof affidavit and filed documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 and A2 series. Ext.A1 is the O P card issued by 2nd Opposite Party Hospital and Ext.A2 series are the medical bills. The Opposite Party No.1 filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW1. 2nd Opposite Party's witness is examined as OPW2 and marked Exts.B1 to B3. Ext.B2 series are in 14 numbers. 1st Opposite Party in his cross examination stated that he had introduced 2nd Opposite Party to the Complainant and not witnessed any money transaction between them. The complainant in his cross examination stated that one Mr. Ramakrishnan had informed him about the (OP2) Doctor and as per the information of this Ramakrishnan, he met one Sambasivan. This Sambasivan is the brother in law of Ramakrishnan and this Ramakrishnan is the neighbour of complainant. Either this Ramakrishnan or this Sambasivan are not the parties in the case. OPW1 (OP1) stated in his cross examination that he did not have personal connection with the doctor. He further stated that he did not went to the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital so far. OPW2 in his cross examination stated that the Hospital authorities collected only Rs.100/- from the Complainant and medicine bills. In this case, the complainant did not produce any document to prove the medical fees paid by him. In the complaint it is stated that the medical fees fixed is Rs.30,000/- and an amount of Rs.10,000/- is given as advance. For that also there is no documentary evidence or witness is produced to prove it. Complainant stated that 2nd Opposite Party received Rs.10,000/- from the complainant in the presence of 1st Opposite Party. But 1st Opposite party denied it and stated that he did not witness the money transaction. By analysing all these evidences, the Forum found that the complainant failed to prove the payment of fees and how he pleaded jurisdiction in Wayanad District etc. 2nd Opposite Party and hospital are situated outside Wayanad. The Complainant miserably failed to prove his case beyond doubt. So the Forum found that there is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties in dealing the mater. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get the cost and compensation. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July 2014.
Date of filing: 25.05.2013.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant.
PW1 Mammu Complainant.
Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Ismail Agariculture.
OPW2. Jayanand Rtd. Ayurveda Doctor.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. O.P Card.
A2 series (8 in Nos.) Bills.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1 OP/IP Record. dt:11.10.2012.
B2 series (14 in Nos.) Bills.
B3. Copy of Registration Certificate.
