Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/62/2021

Mrs.Kani - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM Medical, Rep by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. R.Nisha

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :19.01.2021

Date of Reservation      :16.08.2022

Date of Order               :25.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:  TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                          : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           : MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 62/2021

THURSDAY, THE 25^thDAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mrs. Kani,

No.8, Muthu Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai,

Tamil Nadu 600 004.                                                       ... Complainant               

 

..Vs..

OM Medical,

Represented by its Manager,

SemoorCenter, No.172,

Arcot Road, Vadapalani,

Opp: Vijaya Hospital,

Chennai – 600 026.                                                      ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant      :M/s. R. Nisha

Counsel for the Opposite Party   :Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-II, S.Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and  prays  to  direct

the Opposite Party to refund amount of Rs.258.06/- with interest @ 12% p.a from 26.12.2020 till the date of payment and award damages of Rs.25,000/- for the unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Party along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

The Complainant is a senior citizen and House wife admitted into Vijaya Hospital for urgent treatment of severe Diarrhea on 26-12-2020. The Complainant 3 years ago admitted in the same hospital for open heart surgery, after health checkup performed by the doctor. The Doctor prescribed Tablet - CYTOGARD OD - ONLY 4 TABLETS. The prescribed  Tablet by the Doctor is Schedule H Prescription Drug – with Caution: Not to be sold by retailers without the Prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner which is mentioned on the medicine cover. The Nursing staff requested the Complainant attendant Mrs. Vijaya Ramesh to buy the above medicine immediately. Hence the Complainant’s attendant went in a hurry to purchase a tablet to the Opposite Party Medicine store. The Opposite Party checked the Medical Prescription of the said Hospital and insisted the Complainant’s attendant to buy entire strip of Tablet (Consists of 15 tablets).The Complainant attendant was shocked and asked the Opposite Party staff that the Doctor was asked to by only 4 tablet as per prescription, but the Opposite Party refused to sell only 4 tablet.  As the Complainant had only Rs.100/- in  hand  but  the  Opposite

 

Party staff informed to bring more money to buy the entire strip of tablets and then rushed back to the hospital in which the Complainant undergoing treatment,  informed the nurse staff to wait for few minutes for buying medicine. The Complainant came back in a flash to the Opposite Party shop bought entire strip of tablet that cost Rs.351.90/-. The Opposite Party was in a dominating position and had exercised unfair trade practice as the family members would be anxious to get those medicine on time so that treatment would commence, especially when the patient is in serious condition. The Opposite Party insistence on purchase as full strip of tablets imposed an unjustified and unreasonable restriction on the consumer not be allowed for profiteering from the exploitation of critical senior citizen patients, who also finding hard to pay skyrocketing hospital bills. The above acts of the Opposite Party amounts to serious unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3.    The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-4  were marked.    

4.     The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on him. The Opposite Party was called absent and set exparte.

 

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is restrictive trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

Upon perusal of Ex.A-1 it is found that the Complainant was admitted in the Vijaya Hospital for acute gastroenteritis with dehydration on 26.12.2020. The Complainant had already undergone open heart surgery in the same hospital 3 years back. The doctor of Vijaya hospital had prescribed the tablet CYTOGARD OD  60 mg 4 Nos as per EX.A-2. The attendant of the Complainant went to the Opposite Party Medicals on the same day to purchase the medicine as prescribed by the doctor. When the attendant wanted to purchase as per the prescription  4 tablets, the Opposite Party insisted to buy the entire strip and refused to sell 4 tablets alone and the Complainant’s attendant was constrained to buy the entire strip of tablets consisting of 15 Nos as found in Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4.The tablet prescribed is Schedule H Prescription Drug with a caution not to be sold by retailers without the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner. However the Opposite Party had insisted to buy more tablets than prescribed by the Doctor.

        The act of the Opposite Party in forcing the Complainant to buy the entire strip of medicine when the prescription is for only 4 tablets taking advantage of the condition of the Complainant and the necessity to procure the medicine, violating the caution not to be sold without the prescription of a Registered Medical Practitioner, making the Complainant to buy more medicine than what is required, thereby causing the Complainant to spend more and suffer loss amounts to restrictive trade practice. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:-

            As discussed and decided Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.258.06 and a sum of  Rs.3,000/- towards the restrictive trade Practice and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3000/-. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered in favour of the Complainant. As Point Nos 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any other reliefs.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to refund amount of Rs.258.06/- (Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Eight and six paise Only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 26.12.2020 till the date of payment and a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards the restrictive trade Practice and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only), within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 25 of August 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	26.12.2020	Complainant discharge summary
sEx.A2	26.12.2020	Doctor Prescription
Ex.A3	26.12.2020	Medicine Bill
Ex.A4	26.12.2020	Pic of Medicine Full strip – 15 tablets

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT