Since the Complainant was not diabetic, the wrong medicine consumed by him reduced his sugar level.
Chandigarh: A Chandigarh based chemist has been directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pay compensation of Rs 60,000 for giving an unprescribed medicine to a patient. The forum asked the chemist to pay Rs 50,000 for giving wrong medicine and Rs 10,000 as litigation cost.
The case concerns a resident of Ropar who went to PGI Chandigarh to get the routine check-up. The doctors prescribed him to take Metolar XR 50 MG, Razo 20 MG and Ultracet Tab for six months. He bought the medicines from the accused chemist the same day and started taking medicines from July 20, 2017. From July 22, 2017 his health started deteriorating and on July 24,2017 , he became semi-unconscious. He was rushed to PGI where doctor told him about that he was handed over wrong medicines by the chemist. Instead of prescribed medicines, the chemist gave him Gluformin XL 500 MG. Further delay could have been fatal for the patient.
The Complainant accordingly, approached the Chemist but it neither apologized for its negligent conduct nor returned the wrong given medicine (Gluformin XL 500 MG). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the chemists, the complainant has filed a complaint with the forum.
Taking the complaint into consideration, a notice was sent to the chemist but no reply came from its behalf. The case was proceeded ex-parte. The non appearance of anyone proved that there is nothing to say in defence.
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.
The forum further investigated the matter where the priscription and the bill were compared. It became clear that the sold medicine was completely different from each other. The forum noted that instead of the prescribed Tab Met XL 50 mg, the chemist gave the patient Gluformin XL 500 mg.
Furthermore, through the present Complaint, it has been clarified by the Complainant himself that on taking the wrong medicine when his health started deteriorating, he again consulted the concerned doctor who explained him that the wrong medicine which he was consuming is meant for diabetic patients which reduces the glucose in the body.
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.
The forum noted the chemist has indulged in unfair trade practice as it ought to have apologized for its negligent act.
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.
The court then directed the chemist to pay Rs 50,000 compensation to the patient for mental agony and Rs 10,000 as litigation costs to be paid within 30 days