HARI DEV NARGOTRA Vs. SANDOZ INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Dev Nargotra, (here-in-after referred to as the complainant in the complaint preferred under Section 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act of 1987) has since died. He died during the pendency of complaint on 10th Feb '98. His widow and three sons were brought on the record as legal heirs. The complainant had undergone kidney transplant operation on 29th May '96,. This was in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. According to the complainant, the doctor attending on him advised to take a medicine namely Sandimmun Neoral Liquid. The prescription in this regard was given by Dr. A.K. Bhalla. As per the complainant, he had purchased this medicine from Sandoz India Ltd, sales office, New Delhi. This medicine was purchased on different occasions. The first purchase is said to have been made on 29th May '96 vide invoice No. 2208. The second purchase was vide invoice No. 4883 issued on 10th Oct '96. The other invoices are 4347 dt. 24th Oct '96, 4603 dt. 19th Nov '96 and 1205 dt. 26th March ' 97 respectively. According to the complainant when he purchased the medicine vide notice No. 1205 dt. 26th March '97 and used the same, he developed some abnormal symptoms. He was admitted in the hospital. The doctor attending on him examined the medicine purchased vide invoice No. 1205. It was found that the bottle containing the liquid medicine indicated the date of expiry as Dec' 97. This was as per the second label affixed on the original one. In the original label, the date of expiry was Dec '96. The other bottles containing the liquid medicine were also examined and it was found that the fife span of the medicine was two years but it was upgraded by putting another label on the original one which was affixed on the bottle. According to the complainant, as the life of the medicine stood expired and it was on account of this factor, the complainant's recovery progress was hampered. The complainant claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 20 laces.

(2.) Respondent manufacturer of the medicine in question filed an affidavit which is to the effect that the Drug Controller of India verified the stability of the drug and was of the opinion that the medicine would remain stable for a period of three years from the date of manufacture. It was on the basis of the stability report, another label was affixed. It is accordingly submitted that to say that the medicine had out lived its life and that on account of this factor, the complainant suffered some problem is not correct. Para 4 of the affidavit filed in this regard is being reproduced below :-

(3.) Thus, as indicated above, the stand taken by respondent is that re-stickering was done after permission was obtained from the Drug Controller of India and in doing so, no compromise was made with regard to the efficacy of the medicine in question.