Delhi

New Delhi

CC/48/2014

S.D. Mitroo - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Cipla Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./48/2014                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Sqn Ldr. S.D. Mitroo (Retd.)

MBA (Disaster Management)

C-95, Panchsheel Enclave,

New Delhi-110017.

 

 

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.M/s CIPLA LTD.

   Through its Chief Executive Officer,

   A-37, (II Floor) Connaught Place,

   New Delhi-110001

 

2.The Officer-In-Charge Polyclinic,

Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS),

 Lodi Road, New Delhi-110003.

               .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

MEMBER: NIPUR CHANDNA

ORDER

           The  case  of  the  complainant  is  that,  he  was  issued  “Ciplax  Eye  Ointment”  a  schedule- H  Drug  manufactured  by OP  in  January 2011, bearing  batch  No. C200,  expiry  date December  2013  by  ECHS  on 12 August, 2013  against  the prescription  of  same  date.

           It  is  alleged  by  the  complainant  that  upon  removing the  outer  cardboard  cover  of  the  said  tube, he  found  that the  head  of  tube  including  its  plastic  cap  were  covered  with a  thick  layer  of  fungus. He  had  immediately  taken  the photograph  of  ointment  tube  in  its  original  and  untampered form  from  different  angles.

        It  is  further  alleged  by  the  complainant  that  on  14/8/13 he  wrote  to  the  OP  and  other  authorities  of  ECHS,  about  the  unhygienic  and  fungus  infested  eye-ointment  tube,  but  OP  never  replied  to  the  same  till  date.

        Complainant  wrote  various   letters   to  the  OP-1  on  4/9/13 and  10/10/13  about  the  fungus  infested  ointment  but  nothing has  been  heard  from  their  side,  complainant  finally  sent  legal notice  dt.19/10/2013  to  the  OP-1 ,  but  OP-1  failed  to  reply  the same.  As  nothing  has  been  done  by  the  OP-3  to  resolve  the grievance  of  the  complainant,  complainant  approached  this forum  for  the  redressal  of  his  grievance.

        Notice  of  the  complaint  was  sent  to  the  OPS  through post for  16/4/14.  Mr. B. Mohan appeared  on  behalf  of  OP2  and  collected  the  copy  of  the  complaint  on  the  next  date  i.e., 4/6/14.  Since  none  appeared on  behalf  of  OPS  despite repeated  calls,  they  were ordered  to  be  proceeded  with  exparte.

       Complainant  filed  his  exparte evidence by  way of  affidavit, wherein  he  has  corroborated  the  contents  of  his  complaint.

       This case was already reserved for orders  on 13/11/14, but before the order could be passed the then Ld. President and one Ld. Member District Forum retired, leading to facing of this matter for re-arguments.

 

       We have had ex-parte arguments  advanced at the bar and hence  perused  the  record.

       Complainant   has   placed   a   record   the   copy   of  prescription  issued   by   ECHS   Polyclinic  Lodhi  Road,  New Delhi   dt.12/8/13.  Copy   of   the  photograph  of  fungus  infested   eye   ointment,  copies  of   the   written  complaint made  to  the  OP  dt.14/8/13,  10/10/13,  complainant  has  place an record  copy  of  the  legal  notice  dt.9/11/13  alongwith  its postal  receipt sent  to  the  OP1. The  OP  had  failed  to  reply  a  refute the  allegations  leveled  in  the  notice.

       In number of cases courts have held that where serious allegations were made against the OP and the same are not refuted and the notice is simply ignored a presumption may be drawn that the allegation made in the notice are true. (See Kalu Ram Vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (Note 44) and Metro Poles Travel Vs. Sumit Kalra and Another 98(2002) DLT 573 (DB).

        The  present  case  is  one  where  prescription  needs  to  be drawn  in  favor  of  the  complainant  even  otherwise  there  is  no  reason  to  disbelieve  the  facts  stated  in  affidavit  filed  on record  by  the  complainant.

        From  the  unrebutted  testimony  of  the  complainant  as well  as  the  documents  placed  on  record, we are convinced that  the  story  put  forth  by  the  complainant  is  true.

         Bare perusal of the copies of the photograph makes it clear that the ciplox ointment was fungus infested.

         It  is  the  duty  of  the  manufacturer  to  ensure  that  drugs  manufactured  must  be  safe,  effective and uncontaminated.  In  the  present  case, OP  failed  to  ensure  that the  alleged  drugs  supplies  is  free  from  harms. This act of OP-1 amounts  to  deficiency  in  service.

        In  view  of  above,  we  hold  OP  1  guilty  of  deficiency  in service  and  direct  it  to  pay  to  the  complainant  a  sum  of Rs.10,000/-  on  account  of physical  and  mental  agony  suffered by  him  which  will  also  included  litigation  cost  and  cost  of ointment.

This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.

File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on _______________.

 

(S K SARVARIA)

 PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                         (H M VYAS)                                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)

                                                            MEMBER                                                  MEMBER