LexBHANWAR KANWAR versus R.K. GUPTA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 151 BHANWAR KANWAR v. R.K. GUPTA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 8660 of 2009) APRIL 5, 2013 [G.S. SINGHVI AND SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.] A B Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s.14(1)(f) - Medical treatment - Deceit - Appellant's son suffering from C convulsions/fits- Respondent no.1, an Ayurvedic practitioner, had claimed through advertisement that he had total cure for such convulsions/fits - Allegation of deceptive practice by respondent no. 1 - that he administered Allopathic medicines passing them off as ayurvedic medicines - Held: The D respondents relied on a letter dated 24th February, 2003 ·issued by the Medical Education Department, Government of U.P. to suggest that the Aurvedic/Unani Practitioners practicing. Ayurvedic System are also authorised to use allopathic medicines under U.P. Indian Medical Council Act, E 1939 - However, since the incident and treatment as alleged by the appellant relate to the period 1994 to 1997, therefore, letter dated 24th February, 2003 is of no avail to the respondents - Respondent No. 1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and adopted unfair method and deceptive practice F by making false statement orally as well as in writing - Both the child and his mother (appellant) suffered physical and mental injury due to the misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and negligence of the respondents - Appellant and the child thus entitled for enhanced com11ensation for the G injury suffered by them - Since no reason given by the National Commission for deducting 50% of the compensation amount and to deposit the same with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the Commission that part of the order passed by 151 H 152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A the National Commission is set aside - Amount of compensation enhanced from Rs.5 lakhs (as directed by the National Commission) to Rs. 15 lakhs with direction to the respondents to pay the amount to the appellant. 8 The appellant's son suffered from convulsions/fits. Respondent no.1, an Ayurvedic practitioner, had claimed through advertisement that he had total cure for such convulsions/fits. The appellant approached respondent No.1 for treatment of her son. Respondent no.1 prescribed medicines and for considerable time period, C the appellant got her son treated from respondent no.1. The condition of the child, however, only deteriorated despite respondent no.1 's re-assurance that the line of treatment was correct. Later, when a Consultant Neurologist was consulted, he opined that there was no D hope of the child growing up as a normal person. The appellant lodged complaint before the consumer commission alleging that respondent No.1 was passing off Allopathic medicines as Ayurvedic medicines and that E he was prescribing Allopathic medicines, for which he was not competent to prescribe. It was further alleged that respondent no.1 was a quack and guilty of medical negligence, criminal negligence and breach of duty as he was playing with the lives of innocent people without F understanding the disease. It was, inter alia, prayed that direction be issued to respondents to pay a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as compensation; to refund the charges paid by the appellant to the respondents and to reimburse expenses incurred by the appellant in course of the G treatment. So far as entitlement of respondent No.1 to prescribe allopathic medicine is concerned, the respondents relied on a letter dated 24th February, 2003 issued by the Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government of H U.P. to suggest that the Aurvedic/Unani Practitioners BHANWAR KANWAR v. R.K. GUPTA & ANR. 153 practicing Ayurvedic System are also authorised to use A allopathic medicines under U.P. Indian Medical Council Act, 1939. The National Commission held that respondent No.1 having made the false representation was guilty of unfair 8 trade practice but held that in the light of letter dated 24th February, 2003 respondent No.1 was entitled to prescribe Allopathic medicines. However, with a view to curb false representation and to restore faith of the people in Ayurvedic System the National Commission passed a C direction under Section 14(1) (f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.5 lakhs but it ordered to pay only a sum of Rs.2.50 lakhs to the appellant and to deposit the rest of the amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs in fa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.