KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                  VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUANANTHAPURAM                                                                            

                                                 APPEAL NO.36/04

                             JUDGMENT DATED 26.4.2010

PRESENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN                                  --  JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA                                  -- MEMBER

Dr.M.K.Balakrishnan,

Janatha  Bazar,

Uppala, Kasaragod.                                               --  APPELLANT

  (By Adv.Shri Hari Rao)

                   Vs.

M.Yusuf, S/o Mohammed Haji,

“Rahmaniya Manzil” P.O Uppala,                           --  RESPONDENT

Kasaragod District.

  (By Adv.M.Sasindran)

                                                JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 6^th November 2003 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP.90/03 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant against the appellant/opposite party alleging deficiency in service in treating the complainant by the opposite party as a Doctor practising in Uppala.  The opposite party filed written version before the Forum below and contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party and that the opposite party had no occasion to treat the complainant.  It was also contended that the complaint is filed at the instance of rivals who are on inimical terms with the opposite party.  Thus, the   opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

          2. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and witnesses on his side were examined as PWs 2 to 4.  Exts. A1 to A8 documents were also marked on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party was examined as DW2 and a witness on his side was examined as DW1.  Exts.B1 to B7 documents were   marked on the side of the opposite party.  Exts.X1 and X2 documents were also marked through PW4.  On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 6.11.03 directing the opposite party to pay  a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation with cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the  said order, the present appeal is filed by the opposite party therein.

          3. We heard both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal.  He canvassed for the position that A1 prescription was not issued by the opposite party and that the Forum below has gone wrong in relying on A1 document.  He also pointed out that the Forum below has not considered the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the opposite party to  prove his qualification and experience to practise as a Doctor.  The appellant has also relied on copy of the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasaragod in calendar case No. 185/03 and submitted that the criminal case filed against the appellant/opposite party  ( the accused )  ended in his acquittal.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the  respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.  He relied on the oral and documentary evidence adduced from the side of the complainant in OP.90/03.   

          4. The points that arise for consideration are:-

          1.      Whether the complainant in OP.90/03 has succeeded in establishing his case that he was treated by the opposite party M.K.Balkrishnan by prescribing the medicines contained in A1 prescription and that the complainant suffered inconvenience and discomfort due to the treatment by the opposite party?

         2.       Whether th