In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 65 / 2008 1) Smt. Anindita Banerjee Tamta, 29, Baksar Road, Alipore, Kolkata-700027. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) The Proprietor, Sangeeta Medico, 17/A, Gopal Nagar Road, Kolkata-700027, P.S. Alipore. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 1 7 Dated 1 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 . The instant case arises out of a petition of complaint filed on 26.2.08 by Smt. Anindita Banerjee Tamta of 29, Baker Road, Alipore, Kolkata-27 u/s 12 of C.P. act, 1986 against Sangeeta Medico, 17/A, Gopal Nagar Road, Kolkata-27 with a prayer to (a) condemn the aforesaid medical shop owner for his inhuman approach to the deserving customer and (b) issue order for Rs.25,000/- only as compensation to be paid to the complainant by the o.p. Specific case of the complainant is that on 18.2.08, Ankita Tamta daughter of the complainant was prescribed medicine viz. clozam 5 for 10 days by Dr. Kanika Mitra (annexure – prescription annexed with the petition of complaint). One Anup Mondal being directed went to Sangeeta Medico, 17A, Gopalnagar Road, Kolkata-27 for purchasing the prescribed medicine clozam 5. But the owner of the said medical shop expressed his inability to supply clozam 5 as he had clozam 10. Thereafter, Anup Mondol went to the said shop along with Police Officer owing to the complaint of the complainant lodged before the Alipore P.S., Kolkata, but without any fruitful result (annexure – letter dt.18.2.08 of the complainant addressed to O/C, Alipore P.S. vide Alipore P.S. G.D. Entry no.1708 dt.18.2.08). Ultimately, the complainant’s representative had to go to other shop to get the medicine. In the perception of the complainant, the refusal to sell clozam 10 was nothing but harassment of customers and lack of humane touch. Hence, the case was lodged by the complainant against the o.p. u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986. Decision with reasons : Before arriving at any decision in respect of the complaint, it is to be ascertained whether the complainant is a consumer at all u/s 2(d)(i) of C.P. act, 1986. Section 2(d)(i) of C.P. Act, 1986 lays down that “consumer means any person who – (i) buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”. In the light of above definition of consumer, it is evident that the complainant in the instant case is not the consumer of the o.p. in question, since she did not purchase any medicine from o.p’s shop which was an admitted fact and need not to be proved in accordance with Sec 58 of Evidence Act of India. This apart, the o.p. did the right thing by not selling clozam 10 to the complainant since the doctor prescribed clozam 5 as evident from the prescription. It may be worth mentioning that clozam is a sedative drug which may endanger life if taken in overdose. Moreover, it will be highly unethical as well as criminal offence, if the medicine of highor power not prescribed by the doctor is sold by medical shop owner. Thus, the act of the o.p. in refusing to sell clozam 10 is in accordance with medical ethics. In view of the facts stated above, it appears that the instant complaint is frivolous and vexatious in nature and without merit. Hence, ordered, That the case is dismissed and no order is passed as to cost. Fees paid are correct. The case is thus disposed of from this Forum. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. ____Sd-______ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
