Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER, A. RADHA, MEMBER
Novartis India Limited - Appellant
Versus
J. Anto & Anr. - Respondent
Appeal No. 213 of 2012
Decided on : 29-06-2013
For the Appellant :Mr. C.S. Rajmohan and Mr. Abhishek R.V., Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. N.G. Mahesh, Mr. Anilkumar, Advocate.
Unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the rights of consumers to fair and consistent pricing and treatment.
Headnote:
Unfair Trade Practice - Medical Treatment - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(v), Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zb), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(f), Section 2(1)(i), Section 2(1)(n), Section 2(1)(m), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(e), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(v), Section 2(1)(zg), Section 2(1)(zb)] - The court discussed the unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and its application to the medical treatment provided by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. The court highlighted the provisions related to unfair trade practices and the rights of consumers, emphasizing the need for consistency and fairness in pricing and treatment. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions, leading to the order for refund and the direction to discontinue the unfair trade practice.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's son underwent medical treatment for brain tumor, including surgery and radiotherapy. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties provided medication, with the 1st opposite party charging varying prices for the medicine, leading to a complaint of unfair trade practice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1st opposite party engaged in unfair trade practice by charging inconsistent prices for the medicine, leading to an order for refund. The 2nd opposite party was not held liable for the unfair trade practice.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and the appropriate reliefs to be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inconsistency and variance in price of the medicine amounted to unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also directed the 1st opposite party to provide the medicine at a discount rate to all patients, regardless of enrollment in the star programme.
Final Decision: The appeal by the 1st opposite party was dismissed, and the court directed the 1st opposite party to provide the medicine at a discount rate to all patients, discontinuing the unfair trade practice.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. K. Chandradas Nadar, Judicial Member-The appellant was the 1st opposite party in CC.588/09 in the CDRF, Ernakulam The 1st respondent was the complainant. He approached the Forum alleging that his son Tomes Anto, aged 17 years underwent surgery for brain tumour on pituitary adenoma at the Indo American Brain and Spine Centre, Vaikom on 4.6.2003. Then he was referred to the Christian Medical College, Vellore for radiotherapy. He was subjected to radiotherapy from 14.7.2003 to 26.8.2003. Subsequently Tomes Anto started growing taller and taller due to excess production of growth hormone. The complainant and his son consulted the 2nd opposite party. He suggested that the growth could be arrested using octreotide LAR 20 mg Accordingly injection of the said drug was done on monthly basis at a cost of Rs.58,000/-. The treatment was started on 30.4.2008. The 2nd opposite party on 19.8.2008 directed the patient to continue the medicine though there was no positive response. Meanwhile the complainant contacted Dr. Mathew John working in the Kerala Institute of Medical Science, Thiruvananthapuram. At his instance the 1st opposite party/appellant the manufacturer of the medicine supplied it at a maximum discount upto 50% amounting to Rs.29,000/- per month. Since the medicine was ineffective, administration of the medicine was stopped in December 2008. By that time 8 injections were taken spending Rs. 3,60,008/- but the growth of complainants son continued. It is alleged that had the 2nd opposite party recommended for discount of the price of the medicine at the outset the complainant could have saved Rs.1,17,872/-. The complainant sought refund of the said amount.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate version. The 1st opposite party contended that the medicines were supplied only as per the prescription of the 2nd opposite party. At the request of Dr. Mathew John of KIMS Hospital, the 1st opposite party enrolled the patient with the newly launched STAR Sandostatin Lar Cares designed to benefit patients of acromegaly. Thereafter the 1st opposite party supplied medicine to the patient on discount. According to the 1st opposite party, the complaint was without any substance.
3. The 2nd opposite party admitted that the complainant's son was subjected to radiotherapy in 2003 at the Christian Medical College, Vellore. In the interim period he was given cabergoline to suppress the growth hormone levels. Despite treatment given there was persistent linear growth and inadequate suppression of growth hormone levels. In 2008 another medicine octreotide was started. The 2nd opposite party had made necessary enquiries as to whether concession was available for the patient but to no avail cost of the medicine supplied to the complainants son was at the MRP rate. There was no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No 2.
4. Before the Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite parties.
5. As per the impugned judgment the Forum held that no sustainable reason was shown for the variance in price of the medicine and accordingly held that the complainant was entitled to refund of Rs.1,26,266/-. No relief was granted against the 2nd opposite party. Hence the appeal by the 1st opposite party.
6. The only question that arises for consideration is:- Whether there was unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st opposite party and if so what are the reliefs to be granted?
7. Admittedly, Tomes Anto, the son of the complainant, aged 17 years underwent surgery for brain tumour. He was referred to Christian Medical College, Vellore for radiotherapy. But subsequently due to excess production of growth hormone, he started growing taller and taller. Initially the 2nd opposite party administered carbergoline to suppress growth hormone levels. Subsequently another medicine octreotide produced by the 1st opposite party was started, it w
