By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant is suffering from abdominal ailment and allergy complaint. He was treatment by the opposite party since 2014 onwards and the opposite party provided treatment from Perinthalmanna. The opposite party instructed the complainant to meet the opposite party at Perinthalmanna on every month and the opposite party collected 650/- rupees for 2 bottle of medicines special thailam and also instructed to use another thailam worth Rs.350/- at the time of bathing and also to have morning and night every day. The complainant used to follow the instructions of the opposite party. The complainant informed the opposite party that the medicine do not make any result but the opposite party instructed to continue the medicine. The complainant consumed the medicine till 2019 but there was no result at all. The opposite party realized nearly 2 lakh rupees towards the treatment from the complainant. As a result of the treatment of the opposite party there was growth on the different parts of the body and he is taking medicine for the same and undergoing treatment also.
2. The complainant alleges the thailam issued by the opposite party do not reveal from where it is manufactured and belongs to which batch. The medicine also does not reveal the ingredients. The complainant alleges the opposite party have no right to manufacture the so called thailam and the opposite party had not issue bills for the medicine. The opposite party mislead the complainant from 2014 onwards and collected unauthorized money from the complainant. The opposite party illegally prepared the so-called medicine and thereby much exploited the complainant. Due to the conception of the so called medicine of the opposite party and the treatment the complainant is suffering from different ailments. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite party. The complainant claims compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- and refund of Rs.2,00,000/ from the opposite party. The complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite party on 08/04/2019. But the reply was that the opposite party had not treated the complainant as stated by the complainant. So the complainant pray for 8,00,000/- rupees as compensation, 2,00,000/- rupees as cost of the medicine collected from the complainant and also interest for the said amount at the rate of 12% per annum and other appropriate reliefs.
3. On receipt of complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
4. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint and contended that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant is not a consumer.
5. The opposite party denied that the complainant was under the treatment of the opposite party since 2014. Though complainant produced one document dated 17/01/2014 to prove the case that he was treated by the opposite party. The complainant not produced any document that he was treated by the opposite party thereafter. The complaint is time barred since it is filed in the year 2019 contenting that he was treated in the year 2014 only to overcome the delay, the complainant contended that he is continuing treatment from 2014 onwards.
6. The opposite party denied the averment in the complaint that he is suffering from abdominal ailment, allergy complaint, continuing treatment from 2014 onwards, the complainant was asked to meet the opposite party on every month, used to collect two bottle medicine from the opposite party which is manufactured by the opposite party itself, it was asked to use on his head as well as all over the body and to take bath thereafter, instructed to consume twice a day thailam worth Rs.350/ etc.
7. The opposite party denied the contention that the complainant informed the opposite party, that the medicine is not effective, asked to continue the medicine, continued conception of medicine till 2019. But so far as no result yielded, the opposite party collected nearly Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant, due to the treatment it was appeared growth on different part of the body of the compliant and for that the complainant is undergoing treatment for the same etc. The opposite party also denied the averment that the Ayurveda special thailum did not disclose from where it was manufactured content of the thailum, date of manufacturing, the name of batch, the opposite party is not qualified to make the medicine etc. The opposite party denied that the complainant was misled by the opposite party, collected undue money. The complainant was constrained to use the medicine prepared by the complainant illegally and thereby tried to exploit financially etc. are baseless and so denied.
8. The opposite party submitted that he is qualified, with diploma in Aurvedic medicine on 23/12/1974 and he got registration before Travancore – Cochin Medical council for Indian system of medicine. The opposite party provided treatment throughout Kerala State and it is usual to treat at Perinthalmanna once in every month. The opposite party is being consulting number of patients, it is not possible to identify a patient who has treated on 17/01/2014 from the document produced by the complainant. So that only the complainant sent reply notice since the notice of 2014 or the patient who was met in the year 2014 could not identify the opposite party. It was not a willfull statement but it is correct that the complainant was not treated by the opposite party in the year 2014 January 17. The opposite party usual to issue prescription along with date of examination and also giving fresh prescription in case of alteration of prescription. The opposite party collecting fees considering the nature of ailment. The contention of the complainant that there was no result for the treatment from 2014 to 2019 is baseless and not believable. The attempt of the complainant is to extract undue money from the opposite party.
9. The opposite party submitted that the complainant was availed treatment only for paying for waste the complainant was never treated by the opposite party for the allergy which is evident from the treatment record produced by the complainant. The complainant had purchased two bottles of medicine worth Rs. 650/- . The opposite party had instructed the complainant to have 20 drops of medicine twice day which is worth Rs.350/-. The submission in the complaint that to consumer 10 ml twice day is a false allegation. It is also denied that complainant approached opposite party and complaint several times about the worthlessness of the medicine. The opposite party submitted that due to consumption of opposite party medicine no side effect is reported and no chance for the same. The opposite party is having traditional experience in the field of Ayurvedic medicine and in addition to that he is qualified diploma in Aurvedic medicine. The opposite party is honored by Indira Gandhi National foundation award, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National award etc. So many persons of having high profile is under the treatment of the opposite party. The opposite party has got more than 35 treatment centers throughout state of Kerala. The allegation of the complainant due to the treatment there is unauthorized growth over the body and the attempt of the complainant is to exploit undue money from the opposite party. As per drugs and cosmetics act the complainant is authorized to manufacture Aurvedic , Sidha , Unani medicines . But the opposite party submitted that the issuance of bill is punishable and the contents of the medicine are not essential and it is the usual practice to record the name of the doctors as well as the registration number.
10. The opposite parties do not admit allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice etc.
11. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked As Ext. A1 to A9 and also MO1 (4 numbers) and MO2 (2 numbers). The opposite party opposed the marking of Ext. A6. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1and B2. Ext. A1 is a treatment document dated 17/01/2014 issued in favor of complainant. Ext. A2 is copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv.N. Sashidharan dated 08/04/2019. Ext. A3 is postal receipt dated 09/04/2019. Ext. A4 is the postal acknowledgment issued to opposite party. Ext. A5 is copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv. Jolly Alex dated 04/05/2019. Ext. A6 is copy of prescription issued to Abrahim Kuriyarangadi dated 17/12/2014. Ext. A7 is brochure issued by the opposite party 2 pages. Ext. A8 is copy of prescription regarding diet control. Ext. A9 is copy of hand book about the medicine. Ext. B1 is copy of certificate in diploma in Ayurvedic medicine (DAM) issued by Board of examiners, Government Ayurveda college Trivandurm 23/12/1974. Ext. B2 is registration certificate issued by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council for Indian Systems of Medicine .No.3371 in favor of the opposite party.
12. Heard complainant and opposite party perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
2) Relief and cost?
13. Point No.1 and 2
The case of the complainant is that he was suffering from complaint of allergy as well as abdominal ailments. He underwent treatment before the opposite party at Perinthalmanna from 2014 onwards up to 2019. There was no recovery for his ailment the allegation is that the opposite party collected nearly 2,00,000/- rupees towards the medicine and the opposite party is not qualified to treat the patients and to manufacture medicine. The medicine supplied by the opposite party was not disclosed contents of the medicine and who manufactured the same.
14. The complainant produced Ext. A1 to A9 and MO1 and 2 the case of the complainant is that he was treated by the opposite party from 2014 to 2019. But the complainant produced to show his treatment is one and only document ie. Ext. A1. Ext. A1 is a prescription issued to the complainant on 17/01/2014 by the opposite party. But there is no other document to show that he continued the treatment under the opposite party till 2019. The opposite party though denied treatment of the complainant in the reply notice but admitted later in the complaint that the complainant was treated him in the year 2014. But denied the averment of the complainant that he continued treatment up to 2019. The complainant fail to establish that he continued treatment of the opposite party up to 2019. The complainant has not produced any document to show what his exact ailment in the year 2014 was and what the condition of his ailment 2019 was. So it will be also not correct to hold the contention of the complainant as correct in the absence of proper evidence. The complainant has got a case that the opposite party is not competent to treat the patient and to make the medicine as claimed by the opposite party. But Ext. B1 and B2 are relevant documents to establish the competency of the opposite party that he is competent to treat the patient under the scheme of Aurvedic medicine, which is approved Indian System of Medicine. So, we arrive a conclusion that the opposite party is competent to treat the patient as per the Aurvedic systems of medicine and the complainant fail to establish he was suffering from ailment since 2014 and continued treatment of the opposite party up to 2019. In the light of above fact and circumstances we do not find any merit in the case of the complainant and we dismiss this complaint.
Dated this 25th day of October, 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A9
Ext.A1: treatment document dated 17/01/2014 issued in favor of complainant.
Ext.A2: copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv.N. Sashidharan dated 08/04/2019.
Ext A3: postal receipt dated 09/04/2019.
Ext A4: postal acknowledgment issued to opposite party.
Ext A5: copy of lawyer notice issued by Adv. Jolly Alex dated 04/05/2019.
Ext.A6: copy of prescription issued to Abrahim Kuriyarangadi dated 17/12/2014.
Ext.A7: brochure issued by the opposite party 2 pages.
Ext.A8: copy of prescription regarding diet control.
Ext.A9: copy of hand book about the medicine.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2
Ext.B1: copy of certificate in diploma in Ayurvedic medicine (DAM) issued by Board
of examiners, Government Ayurveda college Trivandurm 23/12/1974.
Ext.B2: registration certificate issued by the Travancore Cochin Medical Council for
Indian Systems of Medicine .No.3371 in favor of the opposite party.
Ext.Mo1 :
Ext.Mo2:
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
