GURDEEP KAUR vs Dr Health

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.3.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 3288 of 2010 Ms. Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Dr. Health by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner approached OP/respondent on 2.1.2005 with the complaint of sun allergy causing itching, burning of the face as well as post inflammatory hyper pigmentation of the face for which she paid Rs. 3,000/ - for six months. As there was no improvement even after expiry of 6 months, she got treatment extended for another six months and paid Rs.3,000/ -. It was further alleged that inspite of assurance there was no improvement by taking treatment rather she suffered side effects like severe hair fall, nose leak and sneezing which amounted to unfair trade practice by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied all the allegations and submitted that complainant was explained that treatment process would involve a multi -therapy combination of oral homeopathic medicines, local applications and nutritional therapy. It was further submitted that if complainant experienced side effects, she should have stopped medicines, but instead of this not only she continued medicines for six months, but extended the course for another six months. It was further submitted that as complainant was experiencing improvement, she wanted to take two months free medicines further, but no free medicines were provided. OP denied any unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach competent civil court or to file counter claim in civil suit pending before City Civil Court. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum committed error in not considering evidence filed by complainant and further committed error in directing complainant to approach Civil Court; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to learned District Forum for deciding complaint afresh after considering evidence filed by the complainant. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that orders passed by learned District Forum and learned State Commission are in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

LEARNED District Forum observed that as complainant has made complaint to different authorities and Boards and to the Minister concerned which cannot be appreciated and that leads to disentitlement of relief sought by her in this complaint. Apparently, this observation is not to the mark as complainant was free to have recourse to different authorities and only on this ground her complaint cannot be thrown away. Learned District Forum also observed that District Forum is not an expert to deal with the medical expert aspects complained by the complainant. Apparently, this is not a valid ground for dismissal of complaint or for directing complainant to approach Civil Court. Learned District Forum also observed that numerous papers and documents produced by the complainant were not properly exhibited and they were not proved as per law by examining the author of documents. This observation is also not in accordance with law because author of commentaries and paper publications are not required to be examined to prove their views. It is upto the Forum to give or not to give weightage to the opinions expressed in their publications. It was further observed that OP has already filed Civil Suit before City Civil Court, Bangalore against the complainant and complainant can file counter claim in the suit itself and on this ground complainant was directed to approach to the Civil Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after dismissal of complaint by District Forum, OP withdrew Civil Suit filed before Civil Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent has not denied this fact. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to file counter claim after dismissal of complaint by the District Forum.

LEARNED District Forum has come to wrong conclusion that only Civil Court can decide allegations made in the complaint and committed error in directing complainant to approach Civil Court. Learned State Commission has not dealt this aspect in its order and simply observed that as complainant has not discontinued medicines and Health and Family Welfare Department gave opinion that OP has not violated any provision of law, appeal is liable to be dismissed. Learned State Commission should have dealt with the aspect whether finding of District Forum giving liberty to the District Forum to approach Civil Court was proper or not and as no such finding has been given, impugned order is liable to set aside.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 30.3.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 3288/2010 Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Dr. Health, rep. by its Managing Director and order of District Forum dated 29.5.2010 passed in Complaint No. 471/2006 - Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Dr. Health is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned District Forum to decide complaint afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and after considering all the evidence filed by the parties before District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.

PARTIES are directed to appear before District forum on 6.5.2015.