KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the judgement dated 27/09/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar, in CC/62/2018.

The Appellant’s case in brief is that, he is a practicing homeopathy doctor at Cooch Behar and on 27/07/2018 at 8 PM, the Respondent along with his wife had been to his chamber for treatment of warts in his left hand and for weakness in his right toe and hypertension. He had then prescribed five homeopathy medicines and had asked for payment of Rs.200/- as consultation fees and Rs.650/- for the medicines. The Respondent/Complainant had paid the said consultation fees of Rs.200/-, due to lack of funds for the medicines, he had requested for prescription, so as to purchase the same from outside pharmacy. The Appellant had issued the money receipt for Rs.200/-, but became furious and refused to hand over the prescription. This altercation with the Appellant and non-delivery of the prescription affected the Respondent/Complainant, that he had to be treated by another doctor.

This refusal to hand over the prescription was not only unethical, but also illegal and resulted in deficiency in service. He then issued a letter dated 31/07/2018, but the Appellant replied to his letter by by-passing the entire matter. Finding no alternative, the Respondent/Complainant lodged a complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar, with necessary prayers.

The Appellant in order to contest the claim filed a written version, wherein he denied the allegations made by the Respondent/Complainant and only admitted the Respondent/Complainant had visited his chamber on 27/07/2018 at about 8 PM, along with some prescriptions and test reports for consultation and after going through the same he had advised the continuity of the allopathic treatment. For such advice, the Respondent/Complainant had paid Rs.200/- against which he had issued a receipt. It was further mentioned that on 31/07/2018, the Respondent/Complainant had issued a letter alleging unethical practice, against which he had replied by letter dated 13/08/2018. It was therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

After going through the evidence and materials on record, the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar passed the impugned order directing the Appellant to pay Rs.22,000/- (Rupees twenty-two thousand) only, within one month from the date of the order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum, would be attracted.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred this instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the Appellant had all along maintained, that the Appellant had received the consultation fees of Rs.200/-, when he had suggested that the Respondent/Complainant should pursue with the allopathic treatment for his ailments. This was reflected in the letter dated 13/08/2018, as well as the written version, submitted before the Ld. Lower Forum. Under the circumstance, the impugned order should not be sustained and prayed for setting aside the same.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant, on the other hand, countered that the Appellant had refused to issue the prescription when he had expressed his desire to purchase the medicine from the outside homeopathic pharmacy. Therefore, this refusal to issue prescription by the Appellant after receiving the consultation fees, tantamount to deficiency of service and the impugned judgement should be upheld.

From the submissions made and on going through the materials on record, the main fact of the Respondent/Complainant visiting the homeopathic clinic on 27/07/2018 of the Appellant, as well as the exchange of the letters between them is not disputed. Now, the only factual aspect, of the question of refusal of prescription, as alleged by the Respondent/Complainant and the subsequent denial by the Appellant, on the ground of verbal medical advice, needs to be determined. The payment and receipt of the fees of Rs.200/- is also not disputed. In this respect, a question arises as to why a medical practitioner would refuse to issue a prescription after receiving the consultation fees, even if he had to advise as alleged by the Appellant. Moreover, it is a standard practice of the medical practitioners to prepare the list of ailments on the prescription in whatever form it may be, even if the advice was, as alleged by the Appellant. Hence, his contention on behalf of the Appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence. On the other hand, the contention of the Respondent/Complainant, to a certain extent stands proved from the Annexure D, the Form of Daily Cash Register, wherein the serial no.365, the name of the Respondent/Complainant is shown and in the Column of Nature of Professional Service Rendered, it is mentioned as Protocol and in the Column of Fees Received, ‘No Medicines Taken’ and the date is shown as 27/07/2018. This Annexure D was provided by the Appellant himself and therefore the authenticity of the same cannot be doubted. Therefore, the entry in the above Annexure, ‘No Medicines Taken’, is a clear indicator that the medicines had been prescribed and the same had not been taken thereby corroborating the Respondent/Complainant’s case that on refusal to take the medicines, the Appellant had failed to deliver the prescription to him. On the other hand, had the medical advice, as alleged by the Appellant, had been done then ‘No medicines prescribed’, would have been endorsed. But as the same was not done, it can be safely concluded, that the contention of the Respondent/Complainant, appears to be the correct version of the incident of 27/07/2018. Hence, from the above findings and observations, the impugned order had been rightly passed and calls for no interference from this end. As a result, the instant appeal fails.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby upheld. The Appellant is directed to comply with the directions passed in the impugned order without fail.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Cooch Behar for necessary information.

Statutory deposits be returned from whom received.

Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC to do the needful.