State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta vs The Managing Director, M/S. Optival ... on 3 October, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/317/2016 ( Date of Filing : 13 Apr 2016 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/03/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/405/2015 of District Kolkata-II(Central)) 1. Mr. Swapan Kumar Dutta 34, Ram Mohan Saha Lane(formerly 8, Duff Street), P.S. Burtolla, Kolkata -700 006. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Managing Director, M/s. Optival Health Solution Pvt. Ltd. 1-1-300/B/1/A, Ashok Nagar Colony, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 020. 2. M/s. Medplus 65/1/1, Sisir Bhaduri Sarani, Kolkata - 700 006. 3. Principal Secretary, Dept., of Health, W.B. Swasthya Bhaban, GN-29, Sector - V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata - 700 091. 4. Director, Drug Control, WB P-16, India Exchange Place Extension, KIT Building, 5th floor, Kolkata - 700 073. 5. Deputy Commissioner of Police EB Lalbazar Street, Kolkata - 700 001. 6. Officer-in- Charge Amherst Street Police Station, Kolkata - 700 009. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Subhashis Saha., Advocate Mr. Anrududha Mohanta., Advocate Dated : 03 Oct 2018 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved over dismissal of his complaint case by the Ld. District Forum, this Appeal is moved by Sri Swapan Kumar Dutta, the Complainant.
Brief facts of the complaint case, as narrated in the petition of complaint, is that, on 05-11-2014, the Complainant purchased some medicines from the shop of the OP No. 2. However, on due scrutiny, he noticed severe discrepancy in respect of the batch nos. of the medicines. Feeling perturbed, he lodged complaint with the OPs, but in vain. Therefore, the complaint case was filed.
OP Nos. 1&2 in their WV submitted that the tax invoice stood in the name of one Dr. S. Bandhopadhya and not the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint case. Further case of these OPs was that even if it was assumed that the OP No. 2 supplied medicines of incorrect batch numbers, Complainant could have rectified the same instantly, but he did not do so.
The OP Nos. 5&6 denied that the Complainant purchased any medicine on 05-11-2014 as no medicine bill issued in the name of the Complainant was filed along with the petition of complaint. Accordingly, they prayed for summary dismissal of the complaint case.
Decision with reasons Parties were heard through their Ld. Advocates and documents on record carefully gone through.
Having heard the parties and on careful scrutiny of the material on record, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned order.
There is no denying the fact that the Appellant cut a sorry figure in establishing the bona fide of his status as a 'consumer'. First of all, the disputed tax invoice stands in the name of one Dr. S. Bandhopadhya. Second, on due comparison of the disputed tax invoice vis-à-vis the prescription issued by Dr. Bandyopadhyay, apart from the medicine, namely, Ecosprin, we do not notice any parity in respect of the other medicines.
Be that as it may, let us assume for the sake of argument that indeed the subject medicines were purchased by the Appellant. Question arise, in that case, can the Appellant completely wash off his responsibility? We do not think so; because, while taking delivery of the medicines, the Appellant too had a responsibility to check the correctness of the medicines delivered to him by the medicine shop in order to prevent the possibility of error.
It is also inexplicable that the Appellant did not notice the error in writing the name of the purchaser of medicine in the tax invoice. One, who is so casual in his own approach, we feel, should refrain from criticizing others - those who live in glass house should not throw stones.
May be there was mistake in writing the batch nos. of the medicines while issuing the tax invoice. However, when the representatives of the Respondent Nos. 1&2 visited the residence of the Appellant for amicable settlement of the dispute, taking into consideration the fact that owing to such human error he was not exposed to any health hazard, the Appellant could mutually resolve the matter, after all, to err is human, to forgive divine. It is alleged by the Respondent Nos. 1&2 in their reply under affidavit in respect of the questioner put forth by the Appellant that the latter demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- from the said representatives to settle the matter. Even from the letter dated 05-11-2014 of the Appellant to the Respondent Nos. 1&2, it transpires that he demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from them as compensation; else, warned them of the consequences of filing civil/criminal case(s). The attitude of the Appellant is not at all appreciable.
Such criticism of the attitude of the Appellant notwithstanding, we must make it clear here that it should not be misconstrued in any way as our approval/endorsement of dereliction of duty in any form. It is always desirable that the pharmacy shops should remain at their toes before issuing bills or delivering medicines to customers.
Hence, O R D E R E D The Appeal stands dismissed on contest against the Respondent Nos. 1&2 and 5&6 and ex parte against other Respondents. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER