Delhi

North

CC/264/2024

YATIN SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PATANJALI AYURVEDA LTD - Opp.Party(s)

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 264/2024

In the matter of

Sh. Yatin Sharma

215, Civil Side, Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi-110054.        

Also at

G-6/74, Sector-16,

Rohini, Delhi-110089                                     …       Complainant

Vs.

Patanjali Ayurveda Ltd.

As Promoter & Seller

Through its Managing Director

Sh. Acharya Balkrishna

D-26, Pushpanjali, Bijwasan Enclave,

New Delhi 110061

Also At

Patanjali Food & Herbal Park

Vill - Padartha, Laksar Road

Haridwar, Uttrakhand - 249404                      …     Opposite Party No.1

Divya Pharmacy as Manufacturer

Through its Owner/Trustees

A-1, Industrial Area, Haridwar

Uttarakhand-249401                                      …     Opposite Party No.2

Divya Yog Mandir (Trust), Haridwar

As Owner of the Trademarks and Divya Pharmacy

Through its Trustees

Patanjali Yog Peeth,

Maharisi Dayanand Gram,

Delhi Haridwar National High Way,

Haridwar, Uttrakhand -249402,

Also At

Kripalu Bagh, Bagh Ashram, Kankhal,

Haridwar, Uttrakhand -249408                       …     Opposite Party No.3

Swami Ram Dev as Trustee and Promoter

Patanjali Yogpeeth,

Maharshi Dayanand Gram, Delhi-Haridwar National Highway,

Near Bahadarbad, Haridwar

Uttarakhand -249405                                     …     Opposite Party No.4

ORDER

10.04.2024

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the arguments of Complainant in person on admissibility of this complaint. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has sought compensation from the OPs herein for using the ingredient “Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis)” in their product Divya Manjan and Divya Dant Manjan. The main argument of the Complainant is that the said Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis) is extracted from Cattle fish, which is a non-vegetarian ingredient but the products in question are categorised as “vegetarian” with green dot on the packaging.
2. In this complaint, M/s Patanjali Ayurveda Limited is arrayed as OP-1, which is said to be promoter and seller of the products in question; M/s Divya Pharmacy is arrayed as OP-2, which is stated to be manufacturer of the the products in question, M/s Divya Yog Mandir (Trust), Haridwar is arrayed as OP-3; which is said to be the owner of the trademarks and OP-2; and Swami Ramdev is arrayed as OP-4, who is stated to be Trustee and Promoter of M/s Patanjali Yogpith.
3. The Complainant has primarily pleaded and argued that the one of the ingredients of the Divya Manjan and Divya Dant Manjan is Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis). The Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis) is stated to have derived from extracts of cattle fish bone. Hence, the said ingredient is a non-vegetarian in nature, but the products in question are sold as vegetarian products. The Complainant has also alleged that the said products are being used by the Complainant since long, but he has recently discovered that the ingredients in the products in question are non-vegetarian. He further argues that coming from a Brahmin background, consumption of non-vegetarian product is strictly prohibited based on religious faith and sentiments. Accordingly, the Complainant has prayed for following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Opposite Party to:-

(a) Written Apologies for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant by OP no. 1,2,3 & 4

(b) Pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(One crore only) towards the mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, health discomfort caused to the complainant, as above mentioned in the complaint.

(c) Pay the additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) towards the cost of present litigation.

(d) Kindly allow the complaint in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

(e) Kindly allow the rest of the court fees to pay at the end of the adjudication of this complaint or deduct from the final award.

(f) Any other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

4.  The Complainant has alleged that there is discrepancy in the information provided by the OPs. The products in question are promoted as vegetarian product, but the same is non-vegetarian. The disclosure that the products in question contain is Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis) is available on the product label as well as on the website of the OPs. However the green mark, indicating that the products in question are vegetarian, is not seen on the product packaging. The green mark is seen only on the website, where the product is advertised and sold by OPs.
5. The next question that that whether Samudraphen (Sepia Officinalis) is a non-vegetarian ingredient, the issue is yet to be decided. The Complainant has not disclosed in this complaint that he had previously approached Hon’ble Delhi High Court raising similar contention. We came across the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Yatin Sharma vs Union of India & ors [WP (C) No. 1510/2024]. By the said order, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has recorded that Ayurvedic Siddha and Unani Drugs Technical Advisory Board (ASUDTAB) has decided to constitute a committee for determining the criteria by which raw materials used in the production of drugs can be categorised as veg, non-veg or more categories, because the interpretation of veg/non-veg depends on various religious, ethical and regional considerations. The said committee is yet to submit its report.
6. As the Committee constituted by ASUDTAB is examining the issue of determining criteria for categorisation of the ingredients in the drugs, we are of the opinion that this complaint is pre-mature and this Commission can only decide on the issue once the Committee constituted by ASUDTAB submits its report. Accordingly, we dismiss this complaint only on the ground of being pre-mature. However, we grant liberty to the Complainant to approach this Commission once the report of the Committee constituted by ASUDTAB is published and the said ingredient in the products in question are categorised as non-vegetarian. It is further clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage and Complainant is free to raise all arguments in this complaint at later stage, if so advised and if available.
7. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the parties in accordance with rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member