Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

184/2013

C.Diwakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rep by The Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.A.Samiullah

30 May 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  25.09.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.05.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY THE 30^th   DAY OF MAY 2017

 

C.C.NO.184/2013

 

 

C.Diwakar,

S/o. Chitti Babu,

No.44/28, Kutty Maistry Street,

Seven Wells,

Chennai – 600 001.     

 

                                                                                     ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Apex Laboratories Private Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.B-23, Sidco, Pharmaceutical complex,

Alathur – 603 110,

Tamil Nadu.

 

2. Vital Therapeutics & Formulations Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Plot No.47, B/2, Phase – I,

IDA Chittapally,

Hyderabad – 600 051,

Andrapradesh,

 

 

 

 

3. The Proprietor,

Mannady Medicals,

Chemists, Druggists and General Merchant,

No.68/141, New Street,

Mannady,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.09.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.S.A.Samillah, K.Mohamed Jamal &

                                                                    S.A.Valeeullah

 

Counsel for 1st & 2^nd Opposite Parties   : M/s.R.Sathish Kumar, R.Chandrasudan

 

Counsel for 3^rd Opposite Party                      : Ex - parte

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay expenses, cost of medicine and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          On 13.07.2013 the Complainant purchased a Medicine called Acetaminophen Oral Suspension USP, P – 250 suspensions of 60 ML, Batch No.PTS 0657, Manufacture dated December 2010, expiry dated November 2013 for maximum retail price of Rs.34/- for his daughter Selvi R.Keerthana, aged about 3 years for cough Complaint on a prescription by Dr.Mohamed Ibrahim, Mannady, Chennai. The Complainant purchased the said medicine at Mannady Medicals Druggists and General Merchant who is the 3^rd Opposite Party. After purchase of the said medicine, he went to his house to give the medicine to his said daughter and before he opened the seal of the bottle he noticed a floating object, which looked like an insect which was moving inside the bottle. The medicine was manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party for the 1^st Opposite Party for the children’s care and health had such brave defect thereby causing mental distress and agony since he could not immediately give medicine to his child, and on the next day only the Complainant would go to the Doctor, hence his daughter’s condition became worse, the Complainant went to the 3^rd Opposite Party show the next day after seeing the bottle he said the Complainant should approach only Opposite Parties 1 & 2. The above polluted medicine is solely due to the manufacturing defect and negligence of the Opposite Parties 1& 2.   The medicine is the lifesaving medicine; if it is consumed by the public their health would be affected. Therefore the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay expenses, cost of medicine and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.    

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

           The 1^st Opposite Party reliably understands that the Complainant did not purchase the product on the said date but has merely created a scene at the 3^rd Opposite Party shop and has procured the bill. The Complainant has colluded with the 3^rd Opposite Party and has created a bogus document for the purpose of filing this Complaint. This Opposite Party denies that there could be any insect in the medicine bottle as the manufacturer is manufacturing the product under strict quality control tests which are routinely monitored by the authorities. It is not possible for an insect to find a place in a medicine bottle as the Opposite Party- 2 checks the bottles before the medicines are filled in and each batch is thoroughly checked before they are dispatched for sale. It is vehemently denied that the product contained an insect and the same is put to strict proof thereof. Hence it is improbable that an insect is found in a medicine bottle. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

   This Opposite Party is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical preparation in India and as such they are manufacturing several products for several companies. The 2^nd Opposite Party has a dedicated staff and state of the art machines to the process and it is denied that a product with an insect has been manufactured by them. It is submitted that the 2^nd Opposite Party has several tires of quality control beginning from the checking of the raw material used for the production till the final packaging stage.  The 2^nd Opposite Party checks even the labeling of the product and unless and until all the parameters are checked and approved the product would not be dispatched for marketing. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

5. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant purchased Acetaminophen Oral Suspension USP, P – 250 suspensions of 60 ML, Batch No.PTS 0657 and Manufacture dated December 2010 and expiry dated November 2013 for a maximum retail price Rs.34 /- for his daughter Selvi R.Keerthana under Ex.A1 bill issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party/seller. The said medicine was manufactured by the 2^nd Opposite Party for the 1^st Opposite Party.

          6. After reaching home before opening the seal of the medicine bottle, the Complainant noticed that a floating object was moving inside the bottle and hence he has not given the medicine to her daughter since the bottle contains polluted medicine. According to the Complainant for manufacturing of such a defective medicine the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have committed deficiency in service.

          7. The said medicine bottle was sent for analysis to Drugs Testing Laboratory and the said laboratory analyzed the medicine bottle and sent report to this Forum and the said report marked as Ex.C1. The opinion furnished in the report as follows:

  The sample is of standard quality as it forms to USP        

  Specification for Acetaminophen oral suspension:

NOTE: By visual examination a black spot is found on the inner side surface of the bottle. When the sample is drained in an empty beaker and scratched the inner side of the bottle with a glass rod and observed that it is only a manufacturing defect of glass bottle and it will not affect the efficacy of the active ingredient.

 

As per the above opinion of the laboratory, the sample found in the bottle is of standard quality. Further only a black spot is found on the inside surface of the bottle and it is a manufacturing defect in the bottle and the same will not affect the ingredient in the bottle. Therefore, the syrup medicine found inside the bottle is not a defective one as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, we find that there is no manufacturing defect that the medicine found inside the bottle and hence it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have not committed any deficiency in service. There is no relief sought against the 3^rd Opposite Party in the Complaint.  

08. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th day of May 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 13.07.2013                   Medical Bill

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 1^st & 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                …….. NIL …….

 

LIST OF COURT DOCUMENT:

 

Ex.C1 dated 18.10.2013                             Laboratory Report

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT