1. The fact of the case of Complainant is that being allured with the massive advertisement of O.Ps through electronic media, on 12.03.2019 he preferred the medical service of O.Ps and got registered his name with the O.P. vide UHID No. ODB1.0000484778 and consulted with Dr. M. K. Chhotray, MD (General Medicine), who after diagnosis, prescribed some medicines and insisted to take medicines from their own pharmacy i.e. O.P. No.1. The allegations of complainant is that he purchased 10 nos. of Mondeslor, 20 nos. of Linezolid Tab, 1 no. of Lysatone and 20 nos. of Pari CR 12.5 and paid Rs. 1,337/- vide their bill no. 15017CC141818 dated 12.03.2019 and found that the cost of 15 nos. of Pari CR 12.5 is of Rs. 213.70, but the O.P. No.1 calculated the total price for 10 nos. of tablets @ 21.37 per one tablet and have taken excess amount of Rs. 142.47 for 15 tablets and on enquiry with the O.Ps regarding the excess price, nobody satisfy him with proper answer, thus showing unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. and with other allegations, he filed this case with a prayer for refunding of excess price, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 20,000/- from the O.Ps.

2. O.Ps have appeared commonly through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting that the complainant has purchased the required medicines as per prescription and paid the disputed amount in the counter of O.P. No.1, but denied other allegations challenging the jurisdiction of the of the Commission to try the case and also contended that the complainant has never approached the pharmacy with a grievance of enhanced bill nor has complained the VOC, a unit constituted by the hospital for mitigating such grievances existing inside their premises.  Further contended that taking the excess price is an act / omission which inadvertently crept in as a bonafide mistake owning to the supplier’s policy decisions to prepare and supply 15 tablet strips from October 2018 onwards instead of 10 tablets strips as was done before and the salesman in the pharmacy counter through a bonafide mistake calculated the price of each tablet taking the inscribed price to be of 10 tablets strips and in the process the price might have got marginally hiked and with other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. Complainant has filed certain documents in support of his submissions, whereas the O.Ps did not choose to file any single document in support of their contentions.  Heard from the A/Rs for parties at length and perused the documents available therein. 
    
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has availed the medical service from the O.P. No. 2 and as per the prescription of their concerned Doctor, he purchased some medicines from the pharmacy counter of O.P. No.1.  The allegations of complainant is that at the time of purchase the prescribed medicines, the salesman in the counter of O.P. No.1   has taken the excess price, whereas the contentions of O.Ps is that it is an act / omission which inadvertently crept in as a bonafide mistake owning to the supplier’s policy decisions to prepare and supply 15 tablet strips from October 2018 onwards instead of 10 tablets strips as was done before and the salesman in the pharmacy counter through a bonafide mistake calculated the price of each tablet taking the inscribed price to be of 10 tablets strips and in the process the price might have got marginally hiked.  Now the question arose to decide :  

1. Whether this Commission lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try the case ?
2. Whether excess price taken by the salesman in the pharmacy counter of O.P. No.1 is a bonafide mistake ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs as claimed ?

5. Coming to the first point, we have already clarified the same as per our order no. 10 dated 30.09.2019 by rejecting the petition U/o 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the O.Ps challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and allowed both the parties for hearing also.  Hence, no need to reiterate our previous order no. 10 dated 30.09.2019, and this Commission has jurisdiction to try the case and answered accordingly.

6. Coming to the second point, we have gone through the documents filed by the complainant i.e. medicine invoice bill vide no. 15017CC0141818 dated 12.03.2019 and found that the bill was raised for the medicines including 20 nos. of Pari CR 12.5mg Tab. bearing HSN Code no. 30049099 for Rs. 427.40 @ 21.37 per each tablet and also the medicine strips and found that the submission of complainant is legal and genuine.  Whereas the in para no. 4 of their counter version, the O.Ps have contended that the said act / omission which inadvertently crept in as a bonafide mistake owing to the supplier’s policy decisions to prepare and supply 15 tablet strips from October 2018 onwards instead of 10 tablets strips as was done before, but the O.Ps have miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence i.e. policy decision of suppliers to supply the alleged medicines. Inspite of ample opportunities, the O.Ps did not produce any such documents to establish their contentions.

Further in para no. 5 of their counter, the O.Ps have admitted that the salesman in the pharmacy counter through a bonafide mistake calculated the price of each tablet taking the inscribed price to be of 10 tablet trips and in the process the price might have got marginally hiked, which seems that the O.Ps are not fully aware of the quantity of a strip and of its price.   If they are aware of such things, then they should have changed the price of the strip in their billing system prior to raising any invoice.  But without doing so, the O.Ps have pleaded that the act of the salesman as calculation mistake, which in our view, not acceptable and is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.   

Further it can be safely hold that the due to such act of the salesman in the pharmacy counter, the O.P. No. 1 must have earning huge amount on their day to day transaction as huge quantity of medicines are sold to large numbers of patients.  Since the present disputes came to the light, it came to the knowledge that such type of act in the hands of salesman is occurring, otherwise, no person have any knowledge about such act, as they are in urgency for medicine for the patients.  Hence we do not think that the version of O.Ps contains any merit.  Further the O.Ps have not filed any single invoice raised on the day of cause of action in their pharmacy counter to prove  that the same mistake has not been done with others,  hence without any documentary evidence the plea of O.Ps is not sustainable.  As such we are of the view that the excess price taken by the salesman in the pharmacy counter, is not a bonafide mistake.   Accordingly answered.

7. Further being the renowned medical organization, it is the duty on the part of the O.P. No.2 to make proper inspection and carry out the periodical check on regular interval so that such type of mistake will not be happened and no patient will be exploited or lost their hard earnings.Further the O.P. No.2 should place a complaint or any grievance box near the reception hall, so that a complaint can be lodged if any dispute arose, instead of searching the VOC at the time of his exigencies. Hence we think the O.P. No.2 have not followed the easiest way to provide better medical and pharma service, which result this dispute.So in our view, both the O.Ps have jointly and severally liable for the act of salesman in the pharmacy counter, as deficiency in service clearly establishes on their respective part and the same definitely caused mentally and financial harassment to the complainant, which compelled the complainant to seek redress before the Commission.Hence this order.

                                                                                                                                ORDER

          The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.Ps being jointly and severally liable, are herewith directed to refund the excess price being taken in the pharmacy counter i.e. of Rs. 142.47 and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation for causing mental agony and financial loss, to the complainant within 30 days from the from the date of receipt of this order, failing which excess amount of Rs. 142.47 shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of cause of action i.e. 12.03.2019 till payment.