The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) recently dismissed a petition filed by a senior citizen alleging a deficiency in service by a homoeopathy clinic for failing to cure a skin ailment as promised.
Dr. SM Kantikar, the Presiding Member, observed that the petitioner’s condition, “Heloma Durum” (hard corns or abnormal growth and hardening of skin in the soles and palms, causing severe pain), was hereditary and had no “complete cure.”
“It is worth noting that the petitioner was suffering from “Heloma Durums,” a hereditary disease with no complete cure. As a result, no doctor can guarantee full recovery from such ailments,” the order stated.
The petitioner claimed that the clinic, Positive Homeopathy Clinic, promised him a complete cure for his condition, which involved skin hardening. He also accused the clinic of promising him that the skin would soften and return to normal after six months.
The petitioner further added that after a year of treatment yielding no result, the clinic treated him for another year for free. However, even after an additional year of treatment, the condition was not cured. In contrast, the clinic denied having guaranteed or promised a “complete cure.”
The clinic also stated that homoeopathic treatment is holistic and depends on a variety of factors, and that no doctor can guarantee a 100% cure for any ailment.
Finally, the NCDRC ruled in favour of the clinic. The Commission considered that the ailment did not have a “complete cure” and that the homoeopathy clinic had provided the petitioner with free treatment for an additional year.
“The petitioner made no allegations about the doctors’ competence or skill. The offer of a package was only an invitation to the offer, which the Complainant accepted on his own violation and approached the hospital for treatment. It was neither a deficiency in service nor an unfair practise to offer such a package “the Commission concluded.
As a result, the NCDRC dismissed the revision petition and upheld earlier orders of the District and State consumer forums that had ruled against the petitioner.
