BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Saturday the 29th day of November , 2008
C.C.No. 153/08
Between:
R.Ramanaiah, S/o. R.Rama Swamy,
H.No.5-493, NSC, Quarters, Jupadu Bungalow Village, Nandikotkur Taluq, Kurnool District. … Complainant
Versus
- The Superintendent, Government General Hospital,
D.No.46/43, Bhudhawarpeta, Kurnool-518002.
2. The Registrar, A.P. Pharmacy Council,
21st Century Complex, 2nd Floor, D.No.5/8/171-A, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.Chalapathi Rao, , Advocate, for the complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and opposite party No.2 in person and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.153/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking declaration of the proceedings dated 24-4-2007 issued by opposite party No.1 as illegal and direction to the opposite party No.2 to register the name of the complainant with opposite party No.1 as successfully completed practical training in accordance with the proceedings dated 4-4-2007 which has the approval of the opposite party No.2 and direction to the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs. 1.5 lakhs as compensation for mental agony at the loss of seniority and job opportunity due to denial of registration , and cost of the case alleging that the complainant having completed D-pharmacy in the year 2007 from G.Pulla Reddy college Government Polytechnic B-Thandrapadu and as per regulations of Pharmacy Council of India , 1948 as has to undergo practical training in pharmacy in an approved hospital for 500 hours and on successful undergoing training has to register himself with the pharmacy council to get competency to get a job / placement either in Government Hospital or in a Corporate Hospital or to start a Pharmacy of his own as a full pledged Pharmacist , on his application along with a fee of Rs.500/- was called for training from 13-4-2007 by the opposite party No.1 vide proceedings dated 4-4-2007 containing 20 names of such aspiring trainees including the complainant and after successful completion of training having obtained a certificate as required in Sec. IV of appendix E format from the opposite party No.1 – head of said training institute – when approach the opposite party No.2 along with said certificate for registration of his name the opposite party No.2 refuse to register alleging the batch of 20 persons to whom permission was accorded by the opposite party No.1 for training have already got themselves registered with the council and so no further registration will be entertained and the opposite party No.1 also disowned any of his responsibility at the said hardship of the complainant and on enquiry the complainant came to know that the opposite party No.1 has failed to follow the guideline procedure prescribed for such admission , causing admission in contravention of the procedure in collusion with ministerial staff adopting corrupt practices by issuing another additional proceeding on 24-4-2007 for another batch of 20 students without any permission or approval from the opposite party No.2 and the said conduct of the opposite party No.1 towards the complainant is amounting to deficiency of service and there by ensured mental agony as deprived of registration and bright prospects of a job with lucurative salary / income of Rs.12,000/- to 15,000/- per month.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant while the opposite party No.1 remained ex-parte by his abstention , the opposite party No.2 caused its appearance in person filling its written version denying any of its deficiencies at the complainant and there by any liability to the complainants claim and seeking dismissal of the case of the complainant .
3. The written version of the opposite party No.2 allege that when it noticed that more candidates than sanctioned strength of 20 belong to the same batch of 30-4-2007 to 30-7-2007 came for registration the opposite party No.1 was addressed for furnishing list of students admitted in the above batch and the opposite party No.1 did not respond to it . It further submits that the grievances of the complainant does not fall in the scope of consumer disputes as the opposite parties are neither traders or manufacturers of any goods or providers of any services and the order of refusal to register the name or removing the name from the register shall be called in question in any Court as per Sec. 38 of Pharmacy Act 1948 and so for want of jurisdiction to the forum to entertain the complaint , seeks the dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A9 and sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on its written version averments and Xerox of documents enclosed there to .
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant’s grievances falls in the scope of consumer disputes and the case of the complainant is entertainable under provisions of C.P.Act or forbidden for entertainment in Court of Law.
6. The complainant as has paid an amount of Rs.500/- vide Ex.A3 as fees for undergoing training as one of the 20 candidates listed in Ex.A1 dated 4-4-2007 . As such he is under the impression that the said fees was paid towards the service of obtaining training . The Ex.A4 indicates that the complainant has successfully completed training . By this it remains clear that there is any complaint from the complainant against opposite party No.1 as regard the training to be imparted to him for the fees he paid under Ex. A3. If there is any complaint as to imparting of training by opposite party No.1 to complainant in consideration of the receipt of said fees of Rs.500/- paid under Ex.A3 , it would have constituted a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 to wards the complainant. But the complaint against opposite party No.1 being not as to any deficiency in imparting the required training but of not following the guideline procedures in getting approval to the trainee batches for which any consideration followed from the complainant . The said non compliance of certain statutory and circular procedures being a matter of the internal administration of said department or institution , for violation of which any departmental disciplinary action may lie , the grievance of complainant as to refusal by opposite party No.2 for registering his name for said non compliance of guidelines as to listing of batches with approval for imparting training does not amount to deficiency of service as contemplated under C.P.Act especially when the Ex.A3 receipt Rs. 500/- envisaging it as a fees for training alone and not enlarging its scope to registration of the name of candidate who has successfully completed training, to constitute the refusal of opposite party No.2 as any deficiency towards complainant .
7. The Ex.A1 is proceeding of the opposite party No.1 dated 4-4-2007 enlisting there with the batch of 20 candidates meant for imparting training and the complainant is one among them . The Ex.A2 is another proceeding of the opposite party No.1 dated 24-4-2007 enlisting there with another batch of 20 candidates meant for imparting training . As per the Appendix-1 F. No. 28 – 1 / 85 –PCJ – enclosed to the written version of the opposite party No.2 as the list of approved institutions by the Pharmacy Council of India for giving practical training to student pharmacists under Education Regulation 1981 in reference to 47th Council date 7-4-1998 , New Delhi and as per Sl.No. 38 of said list the number of student pharmacists that can be trained at a time was 20 , at Government General Hospital, Kurnool . From the averments of opposite parties written version and Ex.A5 and A8 it appears that the opposite party No.1 vide the Ex.A1 and A2 imparted training in excess of the sanctioned strength of 20 during said period. The said Act of the opposite party No.1 being an irregularity occasioned on account of non compliance of the guidelines it cannot amount to any deficiency of service to the candidate attracting any remedial action under provisions of C.P. Act.
8. The grievance of the complainant and others in Ex. A6 , A7 and A9 as being as to the mere irregularities committed by the opposite party No.1 on account of non compliance of guidelines they are remaining of any avail to the case of the complainant as they are not sufficient to hold any deficiency of service of the opposite party for which the complainant has paid fees under Ex.A3 .
9. Further the relief of declaration sought by the complainant is beyond the scope and powers of the forum as C.P. Act any where empower the forum for exercising such powers as in the case of Civil Courts or to declare any proceedings as illegal , null and void as in the case of higher Courts of Judiciary .
10. The complainant being in the Ex.A1 batch list as one of the 20 candidates mentioned therein , the complainant cannot allege any breach of guidelines by the opposite party to his inconvenience as the said list in Ex.A1 being sufficiently earlier to Ex.A2 list in point of time and being within the permitted strength of 20 approved for Government Hospital , Kurnool .
11. Further the material of complainant side is silent as to the particulars of the date when he reported to opposite party No.2 for registration of his name subsequent to completion of his training and obtaining of the required certificate of training. When any candidate concerned in one batch does not report for registration there being any provision for reserving the said registration without any time limit to the said candidate till the said candidate turns up there appears any irregularity in the conduct of the opposite party No.2 in admitting to the registration the name of 20 candidates who reported to him , for registration , completing their training .
12. Lastly the grievance of the complainant arising out of the refusal of registration of his name by opposite party No.2 does not appear to be entertainable before this forum in view of Sec. 38 Pharmacy Act , 1948 which reads as under
“ No order refusing to enter name on the register or removing the name from the register shall be called in question in any Court .”
13. Consequently, there being any material to hold the deficiency of service of the opposite parties to the complainant redressable under C.P. Act at the liability of the opposite parties and for want of jurisdiction the case of the complainant , as is devoid of merit and force , is dismissed with cost.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 29th day of November, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Proceedings of the Superintendent, Government General
Hospital, Kurnool . dated nil
Ex.A2. Proceedings of the Superintendent, Government General
Hospital, ,Kurnool in RC.No. 1577/N2/2007.
Ex.A3. Receipt dated 11-04-2007 for Rs. 500/- issued by OP.No.1
Ex.A4. Appendix E.
Ex.A5. Letter dated 31-01-2008 of OP.No.2 to OP.No.1.
Ex.A6. Office copy of letter dated 31-03-2008 complainant to District
Collector, Kurnool.
Ex.A7. Office copy of legal notice dated 27-04-2008 .
Ex.A8. Reply of OP.No.1 dated30-04-2008.
Ex.A9. Representation dated 09-08-2007 of A.P. Government Pharmacist
Union, Kurnool.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
