BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 18 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 22.1.2015
Date of Decision : 16.9.2016
Sh. Gurdit Singh son of Sh. Hamir Singh, resident of village Mallewala, District Sirsa now resident of Kalyan Nagar, Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Sh. Prem Chand Pansari, resident of near Sabji Mandi, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B. LOHIA ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Yadwinder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Dharmpal Dhanuk, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainant is that he is suffering from stone pain i.e. hyperechoic area of 9 mm in upper pole and 12 mm in right posterolaral wall. The complainant got conducted USG of abdomen on 9.11.2014 from Shri Shah Satnam Ji Specialty Hospital, Sirsa. The opposite party had got published a news in the newspaper “Sach Kahu” on 25.9.2014 in which op declared that he removes the stone of kidney within a day with Desi medicines. The complainant upon reading the said advertisement approached the op on 9.11.2014 and told him regarding his stones problem. Then op assured the complainant that he will remove the same within a day and received Rs.1600/- from the complainant. The op gave medicine to the complainant and asked to take the same on 10.11.2014, 14.11.2014, 18.11.2014 and on 22.11.2014 and complainant took the medicines as per his instructions. Thereafter, on 2.12.2014, complainant again got conducted USG of abdomen from Shah Satnam Ji Specialty Hospital, Sirsa but in the said report besides the above said two stones, one new stone was also found, which clearly proves that op has cheated and looted the complainant. The complainant asked the op to return the above said amount of Rs.1600/- and to compensate him for harassment and pain etc. but op ousted him from his clinic. The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 17.12.2014 upon op but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint for a direction to op to refund the above said amount and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It is submitted that in fact the complainant never purchased the alleged medicine from the op and nor op assured the complainant to remove the two stones as per alleged guarantee narrated in the Newspaper on 25.9.2014, so complainant is not the consumer of op. In the newspaper dated 25.9.2014 the fact of successful treatment is mentioned, so question of guarantee to remove stone problem does not arise at all. The complainant never met the op with regard to stone problems and op never assured him that stone problem will be removed within a day. The remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. By way of evidence, the parties have produced affidavits and documents. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of advertisement given by op Ex.C2, copy of USG report dated 9.11.2014 Ex.C3, copy of prescription slip with dates of taking medicines Ex.C4, copy of report of USG Abdomen dated 2.12.2014 Ex.C5, legal notice Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7 and acknowledgment Ex.C8. Whereas, op has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.R1, copy of certificate of Pracharak Ex.R2, copy of experience certificate Ex.R3 and newspaper Ex.R4.
4. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The opposite party has denied that complainant ever visited to him and ever purchased any medicine from him but complainant in order to prove his case has placed on file copy of prescription slip of the opposite party as Ex.C4 wherein the dates for taking the medicine are mentioned. From the USG report of Shah Satnam Ji Specialty Hospitals, Sirsa Ex.C5 it is clear that one more stone of 3-4 mm in the left kidney was found besides the hyperechoic area 99 mm in upper pole in right kidney which was earlier found in the USG report dated 9.11.2014. In the advertisement Ex.C2, the opposite party declared to treat the stone of kidney with desi medicines within a day. Despite taking of medicines given by opposite party as per his instructions and despite spending amount of Rs.1600/- by the complainant, the stones which were earlier seen yet remained and one more stone was also found in the left kidney of the complainant. So the complainant has been able to prove his case that he suffered more pain after taking treatment from the opposite party.
6. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.1600/- charged from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum as compensation to the complainant including litigation expenses. This order should be complied within a period of one month, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the opposite party. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 16.9.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
