By Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. The Complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-
The Complainant purchased a pack of black henna, a product of the first Opposite Party from the second Opposite Party, Hyper Market. She saw a word on the packet showing that the product is fully ayurvedic and no Ammonia and without any hair damage. She applied it on 10.10.2021 in her hair on both sides of upper forehead. At 9 pm, she starts itching on the head and she had tendency for vomiting. She had to attend the office for conducting a programme. But, her condition became worst and so she could not conduct it. Therefore, she consulted the dermatologist of Government General Hospital, Kalpetta. Her health condition became more complicated thereafter and so she visited a private hospital in the evening. There was no change for 3 days. There was swelling on her face and she looked ugly. When it extended to her face, she could not speak. Her eye sight and hearing seems to be lost. She had foreseen her death. Therefore, on 13.10.2021, she visited another Private Hospital at Vythiri which situates 20 kms away from her home and she was admitted in this hospital. Her husband also at hospital as bystander. Therefore, she compelled to leave her only son having 6 years old at home with the servant. She was isolated for 5 days. She physically and mentally became upset. She as well as her husband compelled to take leave. Hence, this complaint to get compensation of Rs.2 lakhs from the Opposite Parties and to take necessary steps to cancel the license of the manufacturer.
3. The first Opposite Party filed version as follows:-
The Complainant had not purchased any product belongs to this Opposite Party. She has not produced any bill to prove that she had purchased their product. She has not mentioned any batch number, quantity, date of expiry and not produced even the cover as an evidence to prove that the said product was manufactured by this Opposite Party. The Complainant has not mentioned the way in which she used the product. If there any negligence in using the product in contravention of the instructions, there will be damage. This Opposite Party has given clear instructions in the packet to use of product. The instructions include the hypersensitivity test to be performed by each customer before 48 hours of the application of product. If the customer had followed the instructions, she would identify the side effects, if any. The product purchased by the Complainant is to be stored and kept as per instructions in the cover. It should not be exposed to unhygienic atmosphere or in opened condition. Non compliance of the instructions will lead damage the quality of the products. If, the product is kept in opened space, it leads to contamination. This Opposite Party denies that in the packet there is a word stating that “fully Ayurvedic and no Ammonia without any hair damage“. In their product, they had mentioned “no Ammonia without the worry of hair damage and Ayurvedic proprietary product“. Hence, there is no deficiency in their service. So the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. The second Opposite Party is ex-parte.
5. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite
Parties?.
2. Reliefs and Costs.
6. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, OPW1, Ext.A1 to A9 and Ext.B1. Both sides heard.
7. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainant is that she purchased a packet of black henna, a product of the first Opposite Party and she applied in her upper forehead on 10.10.2021. According to her, by 9 pm she started itching on the head and she faced so many health problems and therefore, she consulted doctors of Government General Hospital, Kalpetta and two private hospitals. Her grievance is that she foreseen her death and therefore, she wants to get Rs.2 lakhs as compensation from the Opposite Parties. The case of the first Opposite Party is that there is no evidence to prove that the Complainant purchased their product. According to them, the Complainant might have been used the product without complying the instructions contained there and therefore, they cannot be made liable.
8. To prove the case of Complainant, she has given evidence as PW1. Ext.A1 is the bill by which it can be seen that she purchased black henna from second Opposite Party. She has also produced medical documents obtained by her during the treatment. Those are Ext.A2 series, Ext.A3, Ext.A5 to Ext.A9. She has produced her photos, Ext.A4 series. Ext.A1 to Ext.A9 would go to show that she had purchased henna from second Opposite Party and she got some problems. The medical documents and her photos would go to show that she had some problems on her face and it is evident that she had a complaint to the doctor that this hair dye caused these problems. But the medical evidence does not show that she got these problems due to the use of black henna manufactured by the first Opposite Party. She has also not examined the doctors who treated her to prove that she got these problems due to the using of henna manufactured by first Opposite Party. Moreover, she has not produced the sample of the henna used by her or the product itself before this Commission. She has not taken any steps to send the alleged product for the examination of expert to prove that she got these problems due to the application of this product. Even though, as per the documents produced by her, she has some problems on her face, here absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the reason for these problems is the application of hair dye manufactured by first Opposite Party. First Opposite Party specifically contented that before the actual application, there must be hypersensitivity test before 48 hours of each application of the product. The evidence of PW1 would go to show that she opened the packet and tested the product on her forehead. But, she again deposed that she conducted the test dose from a sample obtained from her neighbour who has also purchased the product manufactured by the first Opposite Party. Therefore, it is evident that the Complainant never used the product purchased by her from the second Opposite Party as per Ext.A1 for testing. Therefore here absolutely, there is no evidence to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. So the Complainant is miserably failed to prove her allegations. Thus the point is answered against the Complainant.
9. Point No.2: Since Point No.1 is found against the Complainant, she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the Complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 22nd day of November 2022.
Date of Filing:-12.01.2022.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Babitha. K. Clerk.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Mallikarjuna Chary. K. Senior Manager, QC & QA.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Retail Invoice/Cash Bill. Dt:10.10.2021.
A2. Copy of Prescription from Good Shepherd Hospital, Vythiri. Dt:16.10.2021.
A3. Copy of Discharge Summary from Good Shepherd Hospital, Vythiri.
A4(Series). Photographs (11 Nos).
A5. Certificate issued fro, Good Shepherd Hospital, Vythiri.
Dt:13.08.2022.
A6. Copy of Doctors Order.
A7. Prescription. Dt:11.10.2021.
A8. Prescription from Dermatologist. Dt:11.10.2021.
A9. Prescription from Dermatologist. Dt:18.04.2022.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
B1. Authorization. Dt:10.11.2022.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
