Sale of Medicine Different from Prescription, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds STV Medicals & Surgicals Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench comprising P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju VR (Member) held STV Medical and Surgical Medical College (Trivandrum) liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling a medicine different from the medicine prescribed by the doctor. The District Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 1,05,000 to the Complainant. Brief Facts: Mr Subha B (“Complainant”), a Radiographer in the Health Services Department, sought medical assistance from Dr Jacob Antony (“Doctor”), a General Physician and Rheumatologist due to joint pain and swellings. The Doctor diagnosed the Complainant with Sponbylopic Arthritis, prescribing a set of six medicines, including T. Mimod 25mg for fifteen days. The Complainant purchased the prescribed medicines from the STV Medical and Surgicals (“Proprietor”) on the same day for Rs. 386 and consumed them for two weeks but didn't receive any relief. Upon a follow-up consultation, the Doctor replaced one of the medicines with D-rise, advising continued medication for an additional four weeks. The Complainant purchased the newly prescribed medicines from the same Proprietor for Rs. 289. Despite this, the Complainant didn't see any change in his condition. He purchased another round of medicines from the Proprietor around 15 days later. However, this time the Complainant developed new symptoms like headache and dizziness. Later due to the deteriorating condition, the Complainant visited the Doctor again and was diagnosed with hypertension. The Doctor made some adjustments to the medicines. The Complainant purchased the prescribed medicines, including Tab Sampraz from the same Proprietor. Later, he discovered that the Proprietor gave him the medicine of incorrect strength (Tab. Sampraz 20mg instead of 40mg). Then, the Complainant started looking at the prescriptions of the Doctor and medicine bills issued by the Proprietor. To the Complainant's shock, Tab. Mimod 25 mg, as prescribed by the doctor, was consistently substituted with Tab. Nimodipine 30mg in all previous purchases from the Proprietor. To seek expert opinion on the adverse effects and aggravation of symptoms, the Complainant consulted Dr. Shanavas, who confirmed the unnecessary consumption of Tab. Nimodipine 30mg which subsequently caused side effects to him. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the Proprietor. The Proprietor didn't appear before the District Commission and was proceeded against ex-parte. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission while referring to Dr. Shanavas' submission noted that the medicines given to the Complainant by the Proprietor were different from the medicines that were prescribed to him by the Doctor. The District Commission held that 'Mimod' is used in treating Rheumatoid Arthritis. Conversely, 'Nimodip' is prescribed as a medicine to treat and prevent further damage to the brain after bleeding, typically prescribed after a brain haemorrhage. The District Commission further noted that the purposes of the two tablets were distinct and were used entirely for different treatments. Despite this, the Complainant purchased and consumed 'Nimodip' tablets for almost two months. Further, Dr. Shanavas testified that 'Nimodip' was prescribed for severe conditions involving bleeding around the brain. and is categorized as a Schedule H medicine, requiring a prescription by a doctor for dispensation. Since the Proprietor didn't appear, the District Commission concluded that the evidence adduced by the Complainant stood unchallenged and supported her case of wrong dispensation and resultant physical and mental distress. Therefore, the District Commission held the Proprietor liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the District Commission directed the Proprietor to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant. Case Title: Subha B vs The Proprietor, STV Medical and Surgicals Case No.: CC/201/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: Anil Prasad Advocate for the Respondent: None (Ex-parte) Click Here To Read/Download Order

Sale of Medicine Different from Prescription, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds STV Medicals & Surgicals Liable

Smita Singh

Tags