JUDGEMENT
A.K.ANNAMALAI, J. -
(1.) The complaint filed under Section 12/17 of the Consumer Protection
Act- 1986
Complainant filed complaint against the opposite party claiming direction
for payment of Rs.70,00,000/- in all towards for the defective treatment
given by the opposite party and for the expenses spent for medicine loss
and including Rs.10,00,000/- for compensation and for costs.
(2.) Complainant met the opposite party for the treatment of over bleeding
during the menses time, on 1.11.2000 at Apollo Hospital, Greams Road
since she is woring at the hospital. Later at the opposite party?s
private clinic and the treatment was periodically done on 8.12.2000,
1.9.2001 and on 28.11.2001 when the complainant had shivering in her
hands approached the opposite party in her clinic opposite party given
tablets viz., HP kit for 14 days also informed that the complainant
having fat over the liver. The complainant took the HP kit tablet after
the prescription was given on 28.11.2001 for the first day she got severe
stomach pain and when contacted the opposite party without examining the
complainant advised to continue the same tablets for 14 days. Accordingly
she took 14 tablets with full pain every day made her to become very weak
and blood was strained over the upper portion of the liver. The opposite
party wrongly given the tablets HP kit without knowing the conditions of
the complainant?s liver directly given this tablets. Due to the severe
pain over the stomach portion when the complainant approached other
doctors specialist in the subject towards that they informed because of
wrong dosage and over dosage of HP kit tablets the liver portion was
blood strained and should be removed only by operation. Hence by giving
wrong tablets there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
party for which complainant suffered loss of income, mental agony, not
able to do her regular work. For her health to meet the other doctors she
has spent nearly Rs.30,00,000/- for the treatment and Rs.15,00,000/- for
medicines and loss of earning for Rs.15,00,000/-. Hence after giving a
legal notice on 4.3.2005 calling upon to pay Rs.80,00,000/- from the
opposite party reply was received on 8.3.05. Hence the complainant filed
the consumer complaint claiming the above reliefs.
(3.) Opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant in her
written version except to admit the treatment given to the complainant
for her menstrual problem and stated that the complaint is barred by
limitation. Complainant failed to prove that because of HP kit medicine
alone she suffered liver strain as there is no medical term as liver
strain and claim has no nexus to the realities and the opposite party is
not liable to pay any compensation and the complainant was in the habit
of attempt to extract money by bringing unruly rowdy elements to her
clinic and disturbing her practice and reputation in the eyes of innocent
patients waiting to see the opposite party. Hence complaint to be
dismissed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.