BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 17/13
SHRI DEBIDAS CHOUDHURI
S/O- LATE DINESH CH. CHOUDHURI
PO -SRIRAMPUR, PS -KAILASHAHAR
UNAKOTI DISTRICT.
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. Proprietor of Astha Medical Hall,
Central Road, Kailashahar, Unakoti District
2. The Deputy Drug Controller,
Gurkhabasti, Kunjaban Office Complex,
Agartala West Tripura.
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
SHRI P. K. DUTTA
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Smt. M. Das , Advocate
For the OPs : Sri A.Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
Mr. N. Dasgupta, Advocate
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :17-08-2017
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON :05-02-2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Shri Debidas Choudhuri U/S 12 of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties praying for awarding a compensation of Rs. 95,000/- and also a litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition, is that the complainant purchased some medicines from OP No.1 for his child as per prescription of Dr. Sharmistha Sarkar, Child specialist, RGM Hospital, Kailashahar on 21-06-2017. The complainant insisted for cash memo, but OP No.1 denied to issue any cash memo and assured that in the event of non-use of the medicine he would take back the medicine without cash memo. On 24-06-2017 the complainant visited the medical shop of OP No.1 for return of some unused two vials of medicines amounting to Rs. 42/- for each vial, but OP No.1 refused to take back the medicine and thus cheated the complainant. Thereafter the complainant made several communications with the OPs, but in vain. The OP No.2 was informed about the action of the OP No.1 being the authority, but no action was also taken on the part of the OP No.2 .There is thus gross deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the complainant, therefore,claimed for compensation and litigation cost, as indicated above.
3. In response to the notice OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum and submitted written statement stating inter alia that the claim of the complainant is false; he has no basis; the complaint is burred under various provisions of Consumer Protection Act; the claim suffered from concealment and suppression of material facts. It is strongly contented in the W.S. that the complainant did not purchase any medicine from the OP No.1 and so return of the unused medicines to the OP No.1 does not arise. It is emphatically stated in the written statement by the OP No.1 that as per Drugs and Cosmetics Act, no licensed medical pharmacy owner is authorised to sell any medicine without case memo and there is also no provision to return medicine and so there is no question of selling any medicine to the complainant and as such, the petition of the complainant deserves rejection with cost.
4. On receipt of the notice OP No.2 also turned up and submitted written statement stating inter alia that the petition is false and imaginary. It is not known to the OP No.2 as to whether any medicine was sold by the OP No.1 to the complainant without cash memo. It is further stated that it is not proper to purchase medicine without cash memo. The complaint petition is not maintainable as per provision of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and rules there under as there is no provision to return any medicine /drug to a chemist's shop once it is sold and as such, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP No.2. Finally it is stated that the petition preferred by the complainant being devoid of merit should be dismissed.
5. The complainant as PW 1 adduced evidence recapitulating the same as is stated in his claim petition and for the sake of brevity the same is not discussed. However, the complainant exhibited the following documents :
Xerox copy of prescription issued by Dr. Sharmistha Sarkar, Child Specialist and on comparison with the original same is marked Exbt. No.1, Demand notice dated 17-07-2017 addressed to the OP No.1 marked Exbt. 2.
6. The complainant was cross examined. During cross examination by the OP No.1 the complainant admitted that he has not collected the cash memo though on 21-06-2017 he purchased medicines from the shop of the OP. No.1. In cross, OP No.1 stated that he kept the medicines on the table and did not preserve the medicines in the refrigerator. The complainant denied that he did not purchase medicine from OP No.1 and out of previous enmity he lodged complaint against the OP No.1.
7. OP No.1 has also adduced evidence asserting the same as is stated in his written statement. During cross examination OP No.1 stated that complainant never purchased any medicine from his pharmacy. OP No.1 stated that they issue cash memo when someone purchases medicine from their pharmacy and as the complainant did not purchase any medicine from his pharmacy, he did not issue any cash memo.
8. The only point to be determined in this case as to whether the complainant purchased medicine from the OP No.1 and whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
9. The case of the complainant is that he purchased some medicines from the OP No1 as per prescriptions issued by Dr. Sharmistha Sarkar. At the time of purchase the complainant insisted for cash memo, but it is alleged that the OP No.1 did not issue any cash memo and assured the complainant that in the event of non-use of any medicine, he would take the medicine back and refund the amount. Now, in this case the salient point is to prove the purchase of medicine form the shop of OP No.1. In support of his claim the complainant submitted and exhibited the prescription issued by the doctor. OP No.2 in his written statement clearly stated that as per Drugs and Cosmetics Act, whenever any medicine is sold by any medical pharmacy, that pharmacy issues cash memo and it is the duty of the consumer to obtain cash memo against the purchased item. The OP No.1 also in the written statement and his evidence stated that whenever they sell any medicine from their shop they always issue cash memo. In the case at hand, the complainant has failed to show and prove that he has purchased medicines from the OP No.1. He has submitted the prescription, but there is no indication in the prescription or from the documents available in the record that the complainant purchased the medicine from the OP No.1 and as such, the complainant has failed to prove any sort of deficiency of service on the part of the Ops.
The point is decided accordingly.
ORDER
10. In the result, the complaint petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs.
11. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
12. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P No.1 free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
\
ANNOUNCED
(P. K. DUTTA)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
