SUVARNA BALJEKAR vs ROHIT BHATT

THIS is a First Appeal against the Order dated 2nd August, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra by which it allowed the complaint filed by the present Respondent Mr. Rohit Bhatt against the present Appellant Mrs. Suvarna Baljekar and ordered the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and expenses amounting to Rs. 1,000/- incurred by the Complainant for his treatment.

FEELING aggrieved against the order the Opposite Party has come before us by way of this appeal. According to the allegations in the complaint, the Complainant was taking homoeopathic medicine from the Opposite Party for a period of three years from June, 1986 to June, 1989 paying her regularly for her consultation fee and bills for the medicines given by her. These medicines had adverse affect on him. He used to get nausea feelings and vomiting after consuming the powders given by the Opposite party. After he stopped the medicine these affects also stopped but now his digestive system had become over sensitive and now and then he gets acidity after taking food and also suffers from mental tension and depression. It is the further case of the Complainant that the Opposite Party is not a registered medical practitioner and he has made complaints to the Maharashtra Homoeopathic Council as well as to the Police but to no effect. He had taken treatment from the Opposite Party for the three years for acidity, nasal problem and occasional mental irritation. Now he gets neurotic feelings and often loses control over his nerves. He has claimed Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation against the physical and mental trouble, he suffered because of the negligence of the Opposite Party and Rs. 5,000/- against expenses for medical bills and consultation fees. He further claimed Rs. 5,000/- for the time and money spent by him in digging out the facts. He also claimed Rs. 1,000/- he has spent for medicines for acidity and the fees paid to two other Doctors. According to him he has to live the rest of his life with the present ailments for which there is no complete cure. He suffers from anxiety, lack of concentration, acidity, mental disturbances, lack of memory and depression. Thus he claimed Rs. 5,11,000/- in all. The Opposite Party filed a counter contesting the complaint and pleaded that the entire story narrated by the Complainant is false and misleading and an attempt to harass her. According to the Opposite Party, she and the Complainant reside in the same building for the last many years. The Complainant on many occasions visited her house and also the clinic. She has never practiced in homoeopathic medicine. According to her the Complainant started misbehaving with her and on one occasion he was asked to go out of the clinic.

THE State Commission found that the Opposite Party is not a registered medical practitioner and is delving (sic) in homeopathic medicines. The State Commission believed the version of the Complainant and directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation plus Rs. 1,000/- as expenses for treatment of acidity.

FEELING aggrieved the opposite party has filed this appeal. We are of the opinion that the State Commission was not justified in granting any relief to the Complainant. The Complainant did not lead any evidence to show that he has suffered from the alleged ailment narrated by him in the complaint after taking medicines prescribed by the Opposite Party. He also did not lead any evidence to show that the medicines prescribed by the Opposite Party were likely to cause the ailments from which the Complainant is said to be suffering. The Complainant also did not lead any evidence to show that he took any treatment for any of the ailments narrated by him. We need not go into the details of the present case because the complaint is clearly time barred. The Complaint was filed somewhere in 1992 and though in it he has alleged that he had takes treatment upto June 2, 1989. However before filling this complaint the Complainant had served a notice dated 21st March, 1991 through a lawyer on the Opposite Party. In that notice he had alleged that he had taken treatment from the Opposite Party for three years i.e. in 1986, 1987 and 1988. Thus the complaint filed in 1992 was hopelessly barred by time as it was filed after more than three years of the alleged treatment taken by him from the Opposite Party. In the light of the above, we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint filed by the Respondent herein. The Appellant will be entitled to the costs of the present appeal which we assess at Rs. 1,000.