District Commission Holds STV Medicals & Surgicals Responsible for Wrong Medicine Dispensation, Orders Compensation

LI Network

Published on: December 24, 2023 at 12:00 IST

In a recent ruling, the Thiruvananthapuram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, found STV Medical and Surgical Medical College (Trivandrum) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

The commission, consisting of P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member), and Viju VR (Member), directed the medical facility to pay a compensation of Rs 1,05,000 to the complainant for selling a medicine different from the one prescribed by the doctor.

The case involved Mr. Subha B, a Radiographer in the Health Services Department, seeking medical assistance from Dr. Jacob Antony, a General Physician and Rheumatologist, due to joint pain and swellings.

The doctor diagnosed Subha with Sponbylopic Arthritis, prescribing a set of six medicines, including T. Mimod 25mg for fifteen days. Subha purchased the prescribed medicines from STV Medical and Surgicals on the same day but did not experience 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. Subha purchased the newly prescribed medicines from the same facility but saw no change in his condition. Despite further purchases, Subha developed new symptoms like headache and dizziness.

Eventually, due to a deteriorating condition, Subha visited the doctor again and was diagnosed with hypertension. Upon reviewing prescriptions and medicine bills, Subha discovered that the prescribed Tab. Mimod 25mg was consistently substituted with Tab. Nimodipine 30mg by the medical facility.

Seeking expert opinion, Subha consulted Dr. Shanavas, who confirmed the adverse effects of consuming the incorrect medicine. In response, Subha filed a consumer complaint against STV Medical and Surgicals with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

In the absence of the facility’s representation, the District Commission noted that the evidence presented by Subha remained unchallenged. Referring to Dr. Shanavas’ testimony, the commission emphasized that the dispensed medicine, Nimodip, was fundamentally different from the prescribed Mimod, with distinct purposes and medical applications.

Consequently, the District Commission held STV Medical and Surgicals responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing them to compensate Subha with Rs. 1,00,000 and an additional Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs.

Case Title: Subha B vs The Proprietor, STV Medical and Surgicals

Related Post