This appeal is directed against the final order and Judgement dated 06/09/2017 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar in reference to CC/4/2016. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the consumer complainant Nipen Das registered a consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum, Cooch Behar on 13/01/2016 to the effect that he felt pain, in his abdomen, and came to the appellant German Homoeo and consulted with Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty attached to the said German Homoeo who prescribed some medicines and asked to avoid various non-veg items and said medicine was supplied from the German Homoeo at the cost of Rs. 900 which was duly paid by the complainant. After consuming two or three dozes of medicine he felt acute pain including some irritations. He again came to the Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty and consulted with him about the problems. Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty after examining him suggested that he would be cured within short span of time but the physical condition of the complainant deteriorated gradually with tremendous pain in his abdomen. He again came to Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty with complain of pain and then Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty refused to examine him. Then he came to another homoeo clinic styled as Recovery Homoeo Clinic at Tufanganj and consulted with Dr. Dheeraj Saha and after receiving some treatment there he got some relief from his itching problems and he visited three doctors and have to pay a huge money for his treatment. Thereafter, he came to know that Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty was not a registered doctor who did not act as per medical ethics which was nothing but deficiency of service. Consumer complaint was contested by German Homoeo and Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty by filing written version and denied all the material allegations levelled against them by the complainant and they wanted to dismiss the consumer complaint. The OP no. 2 that is Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty by separate W.V submitted that at the time of treatment of the complainant he found glandular tumor with constipation in the body of the complainant. He prescribed homoeopathic medicines on the basis of symptoms and advised him to avoid non-veg foods. Thereafter, the complainant never came further to his chamber for any treatment and the allegations against his Homoeopath degree as fake one also challenged by the OP no. 2 in W.V.
After recording evidences and hearing the case of the respective parties the Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute in favour of the complainant and came to a conclusion that Op no. 2 was not a registered practitioner and he was not competent enough to treat any patient in Homoeopathic treatment and there was deficiency of rendering medical service on the part of the OP no. 2 and the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP no. 1 was well established and for that reason the Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute in favour of the complainant/respondent no. 1.
Being aggrieved with the said final order and judgement, this appeal is preferred by the OP no. 1 of the consumer complaint case that is German Homoeo against the complainant and against Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty that is OP no. 2 of that case.
The appeal is preferred on the following grounds that Ld. Forum has erred in law and fact. Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the settled principles of law. Ld. Forum has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgement/final order of Ld. Forum is based on surmise and conjecture and liable to be dismissed. The appeal is contested by the consumer complainant Nipen Das through his Ld. Advocate. The OP no. 2 of the original case Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty did not contest the appeal case in spite of receiving the notice of appeal.
D E C I S I O N S W I T H R E A S O N S
It is contended on the part of the appellant that is German Homoeo that the Ld. Forum has relied upon the money receipt dated 25/04/2014 which was marked as annexure A(i) but the said document A(i) is not original one and the appellant in the original case has challenged the authenticity of the said documents but it was totally ignored by the Ld. Forum.
It is further mentioned on the part of the appellant that the appellant has not taken any charges from the complainant for the service of respondent no. 2 and hence the complainant is not a consumer under the appellant in regard to the services rendered by the respondent no. 2 towards the complainant. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of argument further mentioned that against this appellant there was no allegation on the part of the complainant that the medicines which was supplied to the complainant by this appellant was below quality of medicines and this appellant had not provided any service to the complainant/respondent no. 1 directly as because the appellant only has sold out the medicines on the basis of prescription issued by respondent/OP no. 2 and for that reason there was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the appellant of this case. The further case of the appellant is that this appellant has no capacity to know whether the respondent no. 2 was a fake doctor to practice homoeopath by using his pad while the OP no. 2/respondent no. 2 at the time of his attachment with the appellant establishment claimed himself as a registered medical practitioner and registered with Central Council of Bio Chemic and Complex Homoeo Medicines in India. And for that reason, the appellant had no negligence on his part and appellant had no option to continue unfair trade practice. The last and the final argument of the appellant is that it was the respondent no. 2 who had provided services to the complainant by prescribing the medicines and if the respondent did not have requisite qualification to provide such services then it was respondent no. 2 Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty was liable for medical negligence and unfair trade practice and this appellant has no way to connect with the allegations as levelled against this establishment by the complainant and for that reason the appeal should be allowed.
After hearing the counter argument of the Ld. Advocate of the respondent/complainant it appears to us that homoeopathy is based on symptomatic treatment and it has no side effects. Here in this case the complainant had got abdomenial pain and Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty prescribed medicines for glandular tumor with constipation. But due to wrong treatment as established in this case on the part of the respondent Ujjal Chakraborty, the complainant of this case was fallen victim of side effects and he has become sexually impotent and got burning sensation, low sex irritation, itching problems etc. and It was evident in the prescription issued by the Dr. Dheeraj Saha, homoeopathic doctor. Arijit Das, MBBS doctor and a surgeon attached to Tufanganj Sadar Hospital, Dr. T. Ray along with Dr. Mahesh Ch. Barman a homoeopathic doctor attached to Tufanganj Block Hospital.
The annexure E that is answer to the RTI from Central Council of Homoeopath, it is clearly established that Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty that is OP no. 2/respondent no. 2 was a fake doctor whose name was not registered as homoeopahic medical practitioner and he had no authority to make treatment of patient as a homoeopathic doctor which itself tantamounts the medical negligence and unfair trade practice and the appellant that is OP no. 1 of this case knowing fully well about the actual status of Dr. Ujjal Chakraborty has allowed him to make treatment to the patient who came to the establishment of the appellant and the appellant also in such a situation cannot absolve from the liabilities. So, after concluding the hearing of this case this Commission clearly find that the Ld. Forum has very diligently and convincingly adjudicated the matter and the finding of Ld. Forum does not suffer from any irregularity and this Commission do not want to interfere with the order of Ld. Forum in this appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal fails.
Hence it is ordered: -
That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The order of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar dated 06/09/2017 in reference to CC/4/2016 is hereby confirmed. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the parties free of cost and let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned Ld. Forum through e-mail.
