Con­sumer court rules in favour of duped job­seeker

Consumer Voice - - In The News -

The Mum­bai con­sumer dis­putes re­dres­sal fo­rum has or­dered Chem­bur-based firm, Sevenseas Air­ports and Sea­ports Man­age­ment Ser­vices, to re­fund money with in­ter­est to a job­seeker who was made to go through sev­eral ex­pen­sive pro­ce­dures on the pre­text of giv­ing him the job of a store­keeper. In an ex-parte or­der, the firm was asked to pay Sa­mand­han Aamte Rs 60,452, which in­cluded Rs 20,000 as com­pen­sa­tion and Rs 5,000 for le­gal costs.

“The Op­po­nent failed to se­cure em­ploy­ment for the com­plainant and caused fi­nan­cial loss, on the pre­text of buy­ing a form, med­i­cal check-up and charges for buy­ing some CDs. He was also asked not to call (en­quire) for an­other job, which amounts to un­fair trade prac­tice,” the fo­rum pres­i­dent SD Madake and mem­ber SV Kalal ob­served.

Ac­cord­ing to his com­plaint, Aamte was look­ing for a job when he came across a news­pa­per ad­ver­tise­ment is­sued by Sevenseas. He vis­ited their of­fice and was se­lected for the post of a store­keeper. He was then asked to pur­chase a form for Rs 200 and sub­mit it along with doc­u­ments prov­ing his ed­u­ca­tional qual­i­fi­ca­tions. He was told by an­other em­ployee that this was a ‘golden op­por­tu­nity’ for him. Dur­ing his in­ter­view, they had also promised to pay him Rs 50,000 a month as re­mu­ner­a­tion. Aamte, at their be­hest, then un­der­went a med­i­cal check-up at his own cost at Rs 7,000. He was also di­rected to pay Rs 26,068 for a set of CDs. He was then asked to wait for 75 to 100 days for the com­pany to get back to him and in­structed not to call them in the in­terim. When he did not re­ceive a call from them, he ap­plied for a re­fund and got back only Rs 16,000.

The firm never turned up to any of the court’s hear­ings. Af­ter hear­ing Aamte’s side, the court passed an or­der in his favour. “We hold that the com­plainant was sub­jected to wrong­ful loss by the Op­po­nent. We hold the Op­po­nent guilty for de­fi­ciency of ser­vice and adopt­ing un­fair trade prac­tices. The Com­plainant is en­ti­tled for re­fund of amount paid by him,” the fo­rum ob­served.

Doc­tor left surgical sponge in­side uterus; or­dered to pay over Rs 2 lakh

The Gu­jarat State Con­sumer Dis­pute Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion has up­held a Su­rat con­sumer court’s de­ci­sion or­der­ing a gy­nae­col­o­gist to pay over Rs 2 lakh to a pa­tient for for­get­ting a surgical sponge in her uterus af­ter a cae­sarean in 2003. The con­sumer court in Su­rat had held the doc­tor re­spon­si­ble for neg­li­gence and ruled that the pa­tient be com­pen­sated for the same.

As per the de­tails of the case, a res­i­dent of Ol­pad, Parul­ben Thakor was ad­mit­ted to Dr Heena Parikh’s hospi­tal in Su­rat for de­liv­ery on Jan­uary 23, 2003. The next day, the doc­tor in­formed the pa­tient’s rel­a­tives that there was some com­pli­ca­tion and a cae­sarean op­er­a­tion was re­quired for de­liv­ery of the baby. A daugh­ter was born to Thakor.

Three days af­ter the surgery, the wo­man started feel­ing se­vere pain in her ab­domen and be­gan bleed­ing pro­fusely. Dr Parikh took help of other doc­tors to treat her. The pa­tient was dis­charged in the first week of Fe­bru­ary. But her pain did not sub­side and she was op­er­ated again in April by an­other doc­tor in pres­ence of four other doc­tors.

Dur­ing the sec­ond surgery, a piece of surgical sponge was re­cov­ered from pa­tient's ab­domen. The pa­tient later had to un­dergo a third surgery. Sub­se­quently, she ap­proached the con­sumer court and de­manded com­pen­sa­tion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.