NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 1949 OF 2003 (From the order dated 2.04.2003 in Appeal No.81/2003 of the State Commission, Jharkhand ) Dr. Baleshwar Prasad & Another Petitioners Vs. Firtu Das Mahant Respondent BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER. Unfair trade practice petitioner-opposite party in revision concurrent finding that he did not possess even valid RMP licence to practice medicines second petitioner, opposite party is compounder who gave injection to the complainants son without any technique or prescription by qualified doctor indulging in unfair trade practice inasmuch as petitioner is not possessing any medical qualification and yet prescribing medicines direction to the petitioners to close down their dispensary by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission. For the petitioner : Mr. B.S. Chauhan & Mr. Vinay Garg, Advocates O R D E R
DATED THE 25TH JULY, 2003
JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT).
This
petition has been filed by Dr. Baleshwar Prasad and his compounder who were the
opposite parties before the District Forum on the complaint of medical
negligence filed against them by the respondent/complainant. District Forum allowed the complaint and
directed that petitions were liable to compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs to the
complainant. They were further ordered
to shut down their dispensary working at Bhuli. Appeal filed in the State Commission was dismissed and the order
of the District Forum affirmed.
Both the Forums
noticed that the first petitioner Dr. Baleshwar Prasad was not having any
medical qualification either in Allopathy or in Homeopathy system of
medicine. His case was that he was
competent to treat the ailing persons since he was having a qualification of
R.M.P. (Rural Medical Practitioner) in Allopathy system of medicine. He is an intermediate in Arts.
Though he produced a copy of the certificate issued by the Counsel of
R.M.P., Bihar, District Forum has doubted the genuineness and correctness of
the certificates. The case against the
petitioner was that while the minor son of the complainant was coming from
school at 3.00 P.M., he suddenly complained of severe headache alongwith high
fever. The boy was taken to the
dispensary of the first petitioner for treatment. The petitioner No.2 who is the brother of the first petitioner
Dr. Baleshwar Prasad and was performing the duties of a compounder, injected
medicine. When there was no improvement
in the condition of the boy the second petitioner again administered 2nd
injection. Again there was no
improvement and the second petitioner advised the complainant to take his son
elsewhere for treatment. Immediately, the
boy was brought to the Bhuli Central Hospital but the doctor declared the minor
boy brought dead. This was at about
9.00 P.M. on the same day.
District forum has
strongly commented on the conduct of the petitioner and remarked that they are
first rate liars. Their statements
were not relied upon. The second
petitioner was compounder and working under the first petitioner who
administered the injection. It was a
clear case of negligence and has been rightly held to be so against both the
petitioners.
Learned Counsel
however submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to direct the
closure of the dispensary being run by the first petitioner and which order was
affirmed by the State Commission.
Unfair trade practice has been defined in Clause (r) of Section 2 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It
is an unfair practice if a person represents that the services are of a
particular standard, quality or grade or makes a false or misleading representation
concerning the need for , or the usefulness of, any goods or services
[sub-clauses (ii) & (vi)]. Both the
Forums have found that while the petitioner did not possess even valid RMP
license, it was certainly an unfair trade practice. The second petitioner being compounder certainly could not give
injection without any technique or prescription by qualified doctor. He works as a compounder under the first
petitioner. There is no doubt that they
are indulging in an unfair trade practice in as much as they did not possess
any medical qualification and prescribing medicines which they could no
do. Under these circumstances, District
Forum was right in directing the petitioners to close down the dispensary as
under Clause (f) of sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, District Forum
can direct the petitioner to discontinue unfair trade practice they were
indulging in.
We
do not find any error in the impugned order for us to exercise our jurisdiction
under clause (b) of Section 21 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petition is dismissed.
J
(D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
.
(B.K. TAIMNI)
MEMBER