GURDEEP KAUR Vs. DR HEALTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.3.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 3288 of 2010 Ms. Gurdeep Kaur Vs. Dr. Health by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/petitioner approached OP/respondent on 2.1.2005 with the complaint of sun allergy causing itching, burning of the face as well as post inflammatory hyper pigmentation of the face for which she paid Rs. 3,000/ - for six months. As there was no improvement even after expiry of 6 months, she got treatment extended for another six months and paid Rs.3,000/ -. It was further alleged that inspite of assurance there was no improvement by taking treatment rather she suffered side effects like severe hair fall, nose leak and sneezing which amounted to unfair trade practice by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint, denied all the allegations and submitted that complainant was explained that treatment process would involve a multi -therapy combination of oral homeopathic medicines, local applications and nutritional therapy. It was further submitted that if complainant experienced side effects, she should have stopped medicines, but instead of this not only she continued medicines for six months, but extended the course for another six months. It was further submitted that as complainant was experiencing improvement, she wanted to take two months free medicines further, but no free medicines were provided. OP denied any unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint with liberty to the complainant to approach competent civil court or to file counter claim in civil suit pending before City Civil Court. Appeal filed by complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.