M. THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The complainant is the appellant.
(2.) The facts leading to this appeal : The complainant / appellant, who was suffering from knee problem, had purchased medicines from the 1st opposite party, and one of the medicine was Hridyavirechanam, manufactured by the 3rd opposite party, marketed through the 1st opposite party, on 14.10.2006. On opening the said medicine, it was visible that fungus was formed on the top of the medicine, when questioned, the 1st opposite party irresponsibly answered. However, in the interest of keeping good health, once again the complainant purchased the same medicine on 19.10.2006, from the 1st opposite party, bearing the same batch No. which also contained fungus on the top layer, as found in the previous bottle. Because of the formation of fungus and selling this kind of medicine, the opposite parties have committed, unfair trade practice, causing mental agony to the consumer, and therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice, claiming replacement of the medicine, as well compensation, for which there was no properly reply, resulting this consumer complaint, for the relief enumerated in paragraph 8.
(3.) The opposite parties, admitting that they have manufactured the medicine Hridyavirechanam, purchased by the complainant, under batch No.110, resisted the case, contending that the medicine is a potent safe, mild, laxative under strict conditions, further denying the claim, that the medicine had contained fungus, if so, they should have reported the same forthwith, and atleast they should have produced the bottle for verification, which they failed, and in the absence of the bottle, it is not possible to say that the complainant had purchased medicine, contaminated thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;