Giving Gluformin XL 500 mg instead Met XL 50: Chemist ordered to pay Rs 60,000 Compensation for giving wrong medicine

Significantly, the Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

Since the Complainant was not diabetic, the wrong medicine consumed by him reduced his sugar level. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted opinion that by the grace of God the Complainant was saved by the doctors timely by controlling his health condition as the Complainant being vigilant person again consulted the doctor when he found his health deteriorating, otherwise the consumption of wrong medicine could be proved to be fatal and even could cause death of the Complainant.

In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as he has been made to run from pillar to post for no fault on his part. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have apologize for its negligent act of selling the wrong medicine and refund the amount paid by the Complainant, which it failed to do and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.