- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhanwar Kanwar v. R.K Gupta And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Prashant, the minor son of the appellant, suffered febrile convulsions from infancy. After conventional treatment in Jaipur and at AIIMS, the appellant saw an advertisement in the newspaper Jan Satta (8-8-1993) in which Dr. R.K. Gupta (Respondent 1) claimed a complete Ayurvedic cure for fits. Relying on this, the parents took Prashant to Neeraj Clinic (Respondent 2) in Rishikesh on 21-2-1994, paid consultation and medicine charges, and began administering the supplied tablets.
Despite continued use, Prashant’s seizures worsened and began occurring without fever. Repeated assurances and additional medicines were sent by Respondent 1, who maintained that Ayurvedic drugs act slowly. In late 1996 the parents returned to neurologist Dr. Ashok Panagariya, who opined that the child would not develop normally. Subsequent enquiry revealed that some tablets were allopathic (including “Selgin”), contrary to Respondent 1’s representations.
The appellant filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging false advertisement, medical negligence, and unfair trade practice, and sought Rs 20 lakhs compensation plus ancillary reliefs. The National Commission, relying on a 24-2-2003 letter from the Uttar Pradesh Government, held Respondent 1 guilty of unfair trade practice but accepted his entitlement to prescribe allopathic medicine. It awarded total compensation of Rs 5 lakhs, directing that only Rs 2.5 lakhs be paid to the appellant while Rs 2.5 lakhs be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court challenging (a) the adequacy of compensation and (b) the diversion of half the amount to the Legal Aid Account, and questioned Respondent 1’s authority to prescribe allopathic medicines.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Respondent 1 was entitled to practise and prescribe modern allopathic medicines.
- The appropriate quantum of compensation payable to the appellant.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The 24-2-2003 government letter relied on by the National Commission was not in force during 1994-1997; it could not retrospectively authorise Respondent 1 to prescribe allopathic drugs.
- The National Commission erred in diverting 50 % of the compensation to the Consumer Legal Aid Account without stating reasons.
- The compensation awarded (Rs 2.5 lakhs to the appellant) was grossly inadequate considering the lifelong injury to Prashant and the appellant’s mental and physical suffering.
Respondents' Arguments
- Respondent 1 holds an Ayurvedacharya degree (31-12-1984) and, under the U.P. Indian Medicine Act/letter dated 24-2-2003, Ayurvedic practitioners are authorised to use allopathic medicines.
- Prescribed medicines such as Phenobarbitone and “Wafera” are suitable for epilepsy and include both allopathic and Ayurvedic components; “Selgin” was never prescribed.
- Deterioration in Prashant’s condition could stem from simultaneous treatment by other doctors and non-compliance with Respondent 1’s regimen; Ayurvedic medicines necessarily produce gradual results.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first noted that the impugned treatment occurred between 1994 and 1997, predating the Uttar Pradesh Government letter of 24-2-2003. Consequently, that letter could not legitimise Respondent 1’s use of allopathic medicines during the relevant period. Moreover, the Court remarked that no statute titled the “U.P. Indian Medical Council Act, 1939” exists; the relevant statute is the “U.P. Indian Medicine Act, 1939”. Respondent 1 neither pleaded nor proved registration with any State Medical Council, nor furnished a registration number. The National Commission therefore erred in accepting, on a vague plea, that Respondent 1 could prescribe modern allopathic drugs.
Having affirmed the finding of unfair trade practice and deceptive advertising, the Court held that both Prashant and the appellant suffered physical and mental injury attributable to Respondent 1’s conduct. It criticised the National Commission for arbitrarily diverting half of the compensation to its Consumer Legal Aid Account, finding no statutory or reasoned basis for such deduction.
Invoking Section 14(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and assessing the extent of injury and negligence, the Court determined that an enhanced compensation of Rs 15 lakhs was justified, payable entirely to the appellant.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the National Commission’s direction diverting part of the award, and enhanced compensation to Rs 15 lakhs payable to the appellant within three months; no order as to costs.
Immediate Impact: The appellant receives full compensation, quashing the prior split award. The decision reinforces that unregistered practitioners cannot rely on later administrative letters to justify past prescriptions of allopathic medicines and underscores the judiciary’s readiness to award substantial compensation for deceptive medical practices. No new legal precedent was expressly formulated, but the ruling signals stricter scrutiny of claims by alternative-medicine practitioners who dispense allopathic drugs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.J Mukhopadhaya, J.— This appeal has been preferred by the appellant complainant against the order and judgment dated 29-1-2009 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) in Bhanwar Kanwar v. R.K Gupta (2009) 2 CPJ 193 (NC) whereby the National Commission quantified the compensation payable by the respondents as Rs 5,00,000 and directed Respondent 1 to pay a consolidated sum of Rs 2,50,000 to the appellant and to deposit the remaining amount of Rs 2,50,000 in the account of the Consumer Legal Aid of the National Commission.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the said order and judgment with respect to the total amount of compensation granted. She has also challenged that part of the order whereby Rs 2,50,000 out of the total compensation amount has been ordered to be deposited in the account of Consumer Legal Aid of the National Commission.
3. The facts that led the complainant to move the National Commission are as follows: Prashant, son of the appellant born in May 1989 suffered from febrile convulsions during fever at the age of six months. He was taken to a nearby doctor who after examining him informed that the children can get such kind of fits during fever. He was treated by giving paracetamol tablet. Even after that, Prashant had high fever and he suffered convulsions for which he was treated by one Dr Ashok Panagariya, Consultant Neurologist and Associate Professor of Neurology, SMS Medical College Hospital, Jaipur and at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims), New Delhi.
4. According to the appellant, she came across an advertisement published in a newspaper Jan Satta dated 8-8-1993 offering treatment of the patients having fits with ayurvedic medicine by Dr R.K Gupta, Respondent 1. The advertisement impressed the appellant as Respondent 1 claimed total cure of fits. The appellant wrote a detailed letter to Respondent 1 about her son's fits during high fever. In response, Respondent 1 sent a letter dated 23-11-1993 assuring that he had specialised treatment for the problem of Prashant by Ayurvedic medicines. He advised the appellant to bring her son Prashant in his clinic. Accordingly, on 21-2-1994 the appellant and her husband along with Prashant visited Respondent 2, Neeraj Clinic (P) Ltd., run by Respondent 1 at Rishikesh.
5. Prashant was registered in the said clinic vide Registration No. 7955 dated 21-2-1994. The appellant was made to pay Rs 2150 towards consultancy charges and the cost of medicines for one year vide Cash Memo No. 61 dated 21-2-1994 by Respondent 1. She was told by Respondent 1 that medicines given were the combination of hundreds of herbs. Respondent 1 also handed over a printed circular to the appellant who started thereafter giving medicines to Prashant regularly in the hope that he will be cured. It was alleged that despite medicines being given regularly the condition of Prashant started deteriorating day by day and the fits which were occasional and occurred only during the high fever, started occurring even without fever.
6. On being informed of the condition of Prashant, Respondent 1 intimated that the medicine being Ayurvedic had slow effect. He instructed the appellant to regularly administer the medicines. Respondent 1 sent medicine through VPP. On seeing the condition of Prashant getting deteriorated again, the appellant sent a fax dated 18-6-1995 to Respondent 1 and in response thereto, Respondent 1 sent a fax advising to continue the medicines as before. Thereafter another communication was sent to Respondent 1, in response whereof Respondent 1 sent a letter on 30-9-1995 reassuring that the line of treatment was correct and he advised the appellant to bring Prashant for check-up and also the leftover medicines.
7. The appellant along with Prashant again visited the clinic at Rishikesh to consult Respondent 1 in October 1995. After examining Prashant Respondent 1 gave medicines for which he charged Rs 1500. The appellant was given black and thick white tablets to be administered to Prashant. In the fax dated 20-6-1995 Respondent 1 advised the appellant to continue with the treatment for 3 years. Meanwhile, the fits became more frequent and for longer durations. On 14-11-1995 the appellant contacted Respondent 1 over telephone and during discussion, Respondent 1 told the appellant not to worry and assured her to send more powerful medicines. Thereafter, Respondent 2 sent white-coloured tablets with a letter dated 14-11-1995.
8. During the period from February 1994 to October 1996 the appellant did not contact Dr Ashok Pangariya. However, since the condition of Prashant worsened the appellant again consulted Dr Ashok Pangariya on 28-10-1996 who told her that there was no hope of the child becoming normal and he will not grow as a normal child. To ensure the family tree growing, the complainant wanted to have another child, but due to her physical and mental condition and total preoccupation with Prashant she was advised to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
9. On making enquiry as to the nature of medicines prescribed by Respondent 1 to Prashant it was revealed that the small white tablets were Selgin which is not meant for children. It is alleged that Respondent 1 was passing off allopathic medicines as ayurvedic medicines. It is further alleged that he is a quack and guilty of medical negligence, criminal negligence and breach of duty as he was playing with the lives of innocent people without understanding the disease. He was prescribing allopathic medicines, for which he was not competent to prescribe. It was, inter alia, prayed that direction be issued to the 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 the expenses incurred by the appellant on travelling to Rishikesh and a sum of Rs 10 lakhs for undergoing termination of pregnancy.
10. On notice, the respondents appeared before the National Commission and denied the allegation. According to Respondent 1 he obtained Ayurvedacharaya degree on 31-12-1984 and established Respondent 2 clinic in the year 1991. It was accepted that the appellant approached Respondent 1 for treatment of her son's seizures. After examination of the appellant's son he prescribed medicines, namely, “Phenobarbitone” or “Phenobarbital” and “Wafera” which are allopathic as well as ayurvedic medicines and which are considered to be an appropriate drug for epilepsy patients. The Medicine Code A1-“Wafera” is an ayurvedic medicine and is a brain tonic. He denied that medicine “Selgin” was prescribed. It was alleged that the appellant failed to administer the medicines as prescribed by him. On the other hand, she consulted various other doctors simultaneously for treatment of her son including Dr Ashok Panagariya and doctors at Aiims. It was asserted that the treatment given to Prashant, son of the appellant was proper treatment for epilepsy and Prashant could have developed mental retardation due to the intake of other medicines. The ayurvedic medicines take their own time before showing signs of recovery and, therefore, there was slow improvement.
11. So far as entitlement of Respondent 1 to prescribe allopathic medicines is concerned, the respondents relied on a letter dated 24-2-2003 issued by one Shri Jagjit Singh, Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government of U.P to suggest that the Ayurvedic/Unani practitioners practising Ayurvedic system are also authorised to use allopathic medicines under the U.P Indian Medical Council Act, 1939.
12. The National Commission by its order dated 16-1-2003 directed that the medicines be sent to an appropriate laboratory. By an order dated 5-3-2004, the medicines were sent to Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research, New Delhi. As per the reports of the said institute the medicines were allopathic medicines, except one which could not be identified.
13. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the report submitted by Shri Ram Institute for Industrial Research Laboratory, the National Commission by the impugned judgment (2009) 2 CPJ 193 (NC) held that Respondent 1 having made the false representation was guilty of unfair trade practice but held that in the light of the letter dated 24-2-2003 Respondent 1 was entitled to prescribe allopathic medicines. With a view to curb such a false representation and to restore faith of the people in Ayurvedic system the National Commission passed a direction under Section 14(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 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 favour of the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the National Commission.
14. The respondents have not challenged the finding of the National Commission to the effect that Respondent 1 has made false representation and was guilty of unfair trade practice.
15. In the present case, the learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum of compensation ordered to be paid in favour of appellant and the part of compensation ordered to be deposited in the Legal Aid Account. She has also raised doubt on the authority of Respondent 1 to prescribe allopathic medicines. It was contended that the letter dated 24-2-2003 is of no help to Respondent 1 and cannot be given retrospective effect.
16. Considering these challenges by the appellant and on accepting the finding of the National Commission that Respondent 1 is guilty of unfair trade practice the questions that arise for our consideration are:
(i) Whether Respondent 1 was entitled to practice and prescribe modern allopathic medicines? and
(ii) What is the amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled?
17. The incident and treatment as alleged by the appellant relate to the period 1994 to 1997. Therefore, letter dated 24-2-2003 is of no avail to the respondents as the same was not in existence during the period of treatment. The said letter dated 24-2-2003 reads as follows:
“No. 726/71-2-2003-15
From,
Jagjit Singh,
Secretary, U.P Government,
Medical Education Department
To,
All Medical Officers,
Uttar Pradesh Medical Education Department 2
Lucknow: Dated 24-2-2003
Sub.: To stop activities of harassment and suppression of integrated medical practitioners in the State.
Sir,
I have been directed to state that it is known that the job of registering Ayurvedic/Unani practitioners is done by the U.P Indian Medical Council. In the State Ayurvedic/Unani practitioners practising Ayurvedic system are authorised to use allopathic medicines under the U.P Indian Medical Council Act, 1939, Sections 39(1) and 41(2) and they hold the same rights as that of allopathic practitioners. The Hon'ble High Court has directed to take action against quacks who are registered nowhere. Accordingly it has been decided that if during any such harassment any of the registered Ayurvedic/Unani practitioner produces the registration certificate then no action should be taken against him.
Therefore, the above orders are to be complied strictly.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
Jagjit Singh
Secretary”
From the aforesaid letter it is clear that in connection with some case the High Court of Allahabad issued direction to take action against the quacks who are practising in Allopathic medicine but not registered with the Medical Council.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has not brought to our notice any Act known as the U.P Indian Medical Council Act, 1939 but we find that there is an Act known as the U.P Indian Medicine Act, 1939. In any case Respondent 1 has nowhere pleaded that he was registered with the Medical Council or enrolled in the State Medical Register. He has not cited even the registration number and no specific plea has been taken that he has already been registered with the U.P State Medical Council. Even the registration number has not been mentioned. Merely on the basis of a vague plea; the National Commission held that Respondent 1 was entitled to practise and prescribe modern Allopathic medicine.
19. The National Commission has already held that Respondent 1 was guilty of unfair trade practice and adopted unfair method and deceptive practice by making false statement orally as well as in writing. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hold that both Prashant and the appellant suffered physical and mental injury due to the misleading advertisement, unfair trade practice and negligence of the respondents. The appellant and Prashant thus are entitled for an enhanced compensation for the injury suffered by them. Further, we find 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.
20. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order passed by the National Commission and enhance the amount of compensation at Rs 15 lakhs for payment in favour of the appellant with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount to the appellant within three months. The appeal is allowed but there shall be no separate order as to costs.
Alert