The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of manufacturers and sellers to provide safe and hygienic products, and the consumer's right to seek compensation for harm caused by defective products under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member - Gurleen Kaur (Minor), appellant/complainant (in short "the appellant") has filed this appeal through her father/natural guardian Sh. Rajinder Singh against the order dated 24.8.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Moga (in short "the District Forum").

2. Facts in brief are that the appellant, through her father/natural guardian Sh. Rajinder Singh, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the respondents/ opposite parties (hereinafter called as "the respondents"), on the grounds that respondent No. 1 is engaged in manufacturing of pharmaceuticals and drugs under the licence issued by the competent authority. Respondent No. 1 is the stockiest for selling of drugs.

3. The minor Gurleen Kaur was suffering from her birth from chest infection and was under the care of Dr. Kiranjot Singh Sodhi, Child Specialist and he prescribed medicine "Syrup Terbolex's" for the chest infection. Sh. Rajinder Singh went to respondent No. 2 and purchased the "Syrup Terbolex-S", manufactured and bottled by respondent No. 1 with batch No. BL-919 with manufacturing of 7/2008 and expiry date 6/2010. The said Syrup is Schedule H drug and is for infants and the medicine meant for infants required special attention to avoid any unwarranted incident. Sh. Rajinder Singh purchased the said drug on the prescription of the doctor from respondent No. 2 vide bill No. 8161 for Rs. 16 and took it to his house for giving to minor Gurleen Kaur, appellant. The said syrup contained fly in it which is clear from the naked eye itself. The sealed bottle manufactured by respondent No. 1 and sold by respondent No. 2 is enclosed in the packet for the perusal of the Forum.

4. The syrup prescribed by the doctor was for the treatment of chest infection, whereas the syrup itself contained unhygienic/foreign particles in the shape of fly therein. It would have added more infection to the body of the minor. The entire packet manufactured and bottled by respondent No. 1 is unhygienic and will be dangerous to the lives of many infants.

5. After the purchase and finding the foreign particles in the shape of fly in the bottle, the father of the appellant could not give the required dose to control the infection of the minor Gurleen Kaur, as it was night and the appellant remained without the required dose on that day, resulting into the increase in the chest infection which was under control for the last few months. The appellant not only suffered mental tension, but remained tense throughout the night and in the next morning, it was brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 that there is fly in the bottle, who brought the same to the notice of respondent No. 1, but respondent No. 1 shouted and insulted the appellant, adding more fuel to the fire and the appellant is entitled to the compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000 for deficiency in service and for selling the product, not fit for consumption.

6. It was prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the costs of syrup i.e. Rs. 16 and to pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation expenses.

7. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable. The Syrup Terbolex-S was sold by the answering respondent under the drug price control policy, especially for the poor patients and the price was much less than the other cough syrups. The syrup was purchased by the appellant without any prescription of the doctor. The syrup which was presented by the appellant did not bear any stamp of the doctor and on it, the date mentioned was 23.8.2008, while the appellant had purchased the said syrup on 22.10.2008 without any prescription of any doctor. The present complaint has been filed to blackmail and to unnecessarily harass the answering respondent. The appellant has not used the syrup and is not e