By Sri.Sri. K Gheevarghese, President.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant was under the treatment of Dr. T.P. Suresh Kumar, District Hospital Mananthavady on 17.11.2006 The Complainant consulted the doctor along with her son. The medicines were purchased as per the direction given by the doctor and took in the medicines as per the direction given by the doctor. In course of consumption of the medicines the Complainant was affected of swellings all over the body. On verification of the medicines it was <br /> Contd.......2)<br /> 2<br /> noted that the medicines given by the Opposite Party was not according to the prescription of the doctor. The Opposite Party had given tablet Dolo 650 instead of Tab Lanol and further in the place of the Cap Opal the capsule given was Omicap. The dosage of the wrong medicines agrivatal the illness of the Complainant. The Opposite Party is bound to give the medicines prescribed by the doctor. <br /> <br /> 2. In case of the absence of prescribed medicines the Opposite Party had to informed the same to the Complainant. The supply of medicines not in correlation with the prescription is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. The Complainant had subjected to loss and hardship in the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party. The Complainant is to be compensated with Rs. 15,000/- and the amount Rs.49.90 collected from the Complainant by the Opposite Party for the sale of wrong medicines is to be returned and the cost of the proceedings Rs.1,000/- is to be paid to the Complainant by the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Party filed version. The complaint is filed on an experimental base. The Opposite Party has not given any medicine other than the prescribed by the concerned doctor.<br /> The Opposite Party used to sale medicines only upon the prescription of the doctors. In the absence of any prescribed medicines the same thing will be informed to the purchaser. No where in the period of Opposite Party's practice has a seller of medicine, wrong medicine were not sold. <br /> <br /> 4. The prescription produced by the Complainant is a different one and it was not brought to the shop of the Opposite Party by the Complainant. The Opposite Party is not entitled for any cost or any compensation. There was no negligence or any latches on the part of the opposite Party in dispensing the medicines. The Complaint filed is without any basis and it is motivated<br /> Contd.......3)<br /> 3.<br /> with vestal interest. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite Party. <br /> <br /> 5. The points in consideration are.<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in the dispensing of the medicines by the opposite Party.<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1:- The Complainant's Son, who accompanied the mother to the shop for the purchase of medicines to the Complainant. The medicines purchased were not tallying with the prescription of the doctor. In course of consuming the medicines, the Complainant had physical uneasiness and to recover from it, the Complainant had to undergo further treatment. The bill of the medicines dated 17.11.2006 issued by the Complainant is Ext.A1. The Opposite Party collected Rs.49.90 as the value of medicines. The relevant portion of the prescription of the doctor T.R. Suresh Kumar on 17.11.2006 is marked as Ext.A2. The tablets which were alleged as supplied by the Opposite party to the Complainant are the MO1 and MO2. <br /> <br /> 7. The Contention of the Opposite Party is that she had not sold any medicines wrongly to anybody else apart from the prescription of the doctor the prescription produced by the Complainant is a different one. The actual prescription given to the Complainant by the doctor is not produced instead an another prescription on the same date is produced as the documents. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. The contention of the Opposite Party is not supported by any documentary evidence. On examination of the Opposite Party it is admitted that the medicines supplied to the Complainant is in accordance with the prescription of the doctor. As admitted by the Opposite Party the medicines in Ext.A1 and the prescribed medicines in Ext.A2 are different. The contention of the Opposite Party that the<br /> Contd...4)<br /> 4<br /> <br /> medicines supplied were in accordance with the prescription but that prescription is different one. The Opposite Party has not tendered any documents in order to substantiate their contention. Ext.A2 is the prescription of doctor T.P. Suresh Kumar started from 21.9.2006. The details of prescription on the dates of 25.9.2006, 17.11.2006 and 21.11.2006 are detailed in it. Ext.A2 consist of Tab LANOL, Cap OPAL and B Lasix. In Ext.A2 Lasix, the same medicines prescribed by the doctor, is given to the Complainant. The other two tablets are different the Opposite Party has not produced the bill book in order to substantiate their contention. The non production of the bill book itself shows that the contention of the Opposite Party is incorrect. The Opposite Party dispensed the medicines other than the prescribed one by the Doctor. It is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, point No.1 is found accordingly. <br /> <br /> 8. Point No.2:- The value of the medicines received by the Opposite Party by the Complainant is Rs.49.90. The Complainant has to meet the expenses for the proceedings as a result of the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party. Any how regarding the tenderness and other treatment the Complainant is to be given the cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to return Rs.49.90 (Rupees Forty Nine and Ninety Pisa) the price of the medicines collected from the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and Fifty only) and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards cost of this proceedings. The Opposite Party is directed to comply this within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 20th day of June 2008.<br /> <br /> Contd...5)<br /> <br /> 5.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER – I: Sd/-<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER- II: Sd/-<br /> /True copy/<br /> Sd/- <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined for complainant:<br /> PW1 Muhemmed Thahir Student<br /> Witness examined for Opposite parties:<br /> OPW1 Rosilin T.T Pharmacist<br /> Exhibits marked for complainant:<br /> A1 Medical Bill Dt. 17.11.2006<br /> A2 Prescription given by Dr. T.P. Suresh kumar<br /> MO1 Dolo tablets<br /> MO2 Omicap tablets<br /> Exhibits marked for opposite parties:<br /> Nil