Per Shri Dr. S.K. Kakade, Presiding Member 1. This appeal is filed by Mrs. Neelima Purushottam Harode of Nagpur against Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar of Nagpur, against the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum of Nagpur in Complaint Case No. CC/469/2019. The Consumer Complaint was preferred by the present appellant against the respondent in this appeal, the same was decided by the learned Forum on 05/06/2020 in which the Consumer Complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur the original complainant filed appeal before this Commission. 2. Brief facts for deciding this appeal are as follows:- Appellant- Mrs. Neelima Purushottam Harode approached the respondent - Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar both residing in Nagpur, for seeking treatment by an Acupuncture Therapy as the appellant /original complainant was suffering from back pain. Respondent - Dr. Satbhama Naniwadekar who is Acupuncture Therapy Specialist advised electro acupuncture therapy to the appellant- Mrs. Neelima. The appellant on seeking information from the Web Site of the respondent sought acupuncture treatment from the respondent. It was the grievance of the appellant /original complainant that in spite of receiving acupuncture therapy from 15/02/2019 to 19/02/2019 there was no relief of pain instead the pain aggravated. Further as there was no relief of pain Mrs. Neelima approached Getwell Hospital and Research Institute in Nagpur and consulted Dr. Shailesh Kelkar, who is Neurosurgen. After due investigations operation was performed on Mrs. Neelima Harode on 26/02/2019 and then she got relief of pain. She was discharged from Hospital on 01/03/2019. Mrs. Neelima then filed consumer complaint before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (now Commission) at Nagpur. The learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum decided this complaint exparte since in spite of receiving notice from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum O.P.- Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar did not appear before the Forum and hence the complaint was decided exparte in the absence of opposite party. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the compliant by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mrs. Neelima Harode filed appeal against that order in this Commission. 3. Respondent - Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar did not appear before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur as well and inspite of receiving notice from the State Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur the respondent was not represented before the Commission. Hence, the Commission decided to hear the appellant and accordingly this appeal was heard finally. 4. As per the submissions of learned advocate for the appellant, Mrs. Neelima and her husband after seeking information about acupuncture therapy being given by Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar from her Web Site, reference page Nos. 35 and 36, that are photographs of Web Site pages of Sat Sahib Acupuncture Clinic being run by Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar, M.D. Acupuncture. The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the respondent /O.P. Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar advised of 10 sessions of acupuncture therapy that includes electro acupuncture means using needles for piercing in the body. The needles also connected to electricity source and for these sessions Mrs. Neelima Harode paid Rs. 400/- as consultation charges and totally Rs. 26,000/- till 16/02/2019. Though the said doctor additionally prescribed allopathic medicine as pain killers Mrs. Neelima did not get any relief, rather the pain worsened. The learned advocate for the appellant invited the attention of the bench to the examination form and consent of the patient dated 15/02/2019 issued by Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar, M.D. of Acupuncture , Raipur reference page No. 39, annexure No. 5. Advocate for the appellant further sought the attention of the bench to scratching made by Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar in the heading of this form in which the words ‘ General Physician’ have been scratched. At the bottom of the particular form details of acupuncture treatment have been written. On back of this particular form the said doctor wrote in hand writing that she has refunded Rs. 10,000/- to the patient Mrs. Neelima and accepted Rs. 16,000/- as treatment charges which bears date 13/03/2019. The learned advocate for the appellant also brought to the notice of the bench the original form in original handwriting of the respondent. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant further invited the attention of the Commission to discharge summary issued by the Getwell Hospital and Research Institute of Nagpur showing that the appellant - Mrs. Neelima was admitted on 25/02/2019 and was discharged on 01/03/2019 and Neurosurgen Dr. Shailesh Kelkar operated upon the appellant in which L4-L5 Laminectomy with Dissectomy With L4S1 pedicular fixation, which was done on 26/02/2019. Thus, as per submission of learned advocate for the appellant, the appellant-Mrs. Neelima suffered physically as pain was not at all relieved by the acupuncture therapy and she had to undergo major spine surgery . As per the learned advocate for the appellant, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur did not consider the complainants suffering due to wrong advice and assurance by so called acupuncture therapy specialist Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar. According to him it was brought to the notice of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum that Dr. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar though was not having any formal medical degree, she was practicing as the specialist and also using prefixed as “Dr.” before her name. Mrs. Neelima Harode also filed complaint with the Police Authority complaining against the said doctor, who was practicing without any certificate in acupuncture. Without considering the suffering of the appellant as well as further major operation needed to be performed upon the complainant, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed the complaint and hence the appellant prayed for setting aside the order of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and pass appropriate order in the interest of justice. 6. After hearing the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant and going through the record it is observed that the respondent /original O.P. was practicing as acupuncture therapist. She offered treatment of acupuncture therapy sessions for fees of Rs. 26,400/- in toto. The sessions of acupuncture therapy were actually delivered to the appellant who was patient. On perusal of documents showing Web Site details of Sat Sahib Acupuncture Clinic and also the treatment form which was given to the patient the respondent - Dr. Satbhama Naniwadekar has been using “Dr.” as prefixed to her name when she not supposed to use this prefixed as the acupuncture therapy is not in the list of Government Circular that allows medical specialist, the practicing members of these pathys are allowed to write Dr. as prefixed to their name. Certainly, she himself represented her as “Dr.” and specialist in acupuncture therapy. Mrs. Satbhama Goutam Naniwadekar did not appear and also not represented by any of the advocates before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as well as before this Commission. Her absence and not defending herself by providing proper documents in her support, itself can be said as ‘deficiency’. As she accepted fees for providing acupuncture therapy, the appellant /original complainant was the ‘consumer’ and practicing acupuncture therapy without having any formal degree is nothing but unfair trade practice. 7. On perusal of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur, the learned Forum relied upon inability of the original complainant in filing expert opinion and thus learned Forum dismissed the complaint. According to this Commission there is enough material on record for proving that the O.P, respondent in this appeal, followed unfair trade practice. This is already discussed above. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum need to be set aside. The appellant /original complainant – Mrs. Neelima suffered mentally and physically when actually considering the severity of pain- complaints of Mrs. Neelima, she should have not been treated by acupuncture therapy; instead wrong assurance given by the O.P/respondent resulted in physical and mental suffering by the appellant. In view of the above discussion the original complainant/ appellant before this Commission need to be compensated and respondent also need to refund the fees paid to the appellant. Hence, the Commission passes the following order. ORDER i. Appeal is hereby partly allowed with cost quantified to Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondent /original O.P. to the appellant /original complainant. ii. The order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint No. CC/496/2019 is hereby set aside. iii. Respondent /original O.P. is hereby directed to refund Rs.16,000/- paid towards the acupuncture treatment given by the respondent /original O.P. to the appellant /original complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of payment iv. Respondent/ original O.P. is hereby directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant/ original complainant as compensation towards unfair trade practice by the respondent /original O.P. and mental and physical harassment of the appellant. v. The above order to be complied within the period of two months from date of this order, failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. vi. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost. | 
